Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reliable sources

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Renamed user 0e40c0e52322c484364940c7954c93d8 (talk | contribs) at 11:15, 22 March 2024 (→WikiLeaks on its own article: its not attributed, its in wikivoice). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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, 459
    460, 461

    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.

    Tasnim News Agency - revisiting its reliability

    Is it worth revisiting the reliability of the Tasnim News Agency of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in light of the recent article referenced in the latest WP:SIGNPOST about a related state-backed propaganda and disinformation operation? Amigao (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't seem that Tasnim is listed at WP:RSP, so I'm not sure what any prior consensus would've properly been. Additionally, it's worth noting that article is an opinion piece, rather than an RS accusing it of a disinfo operation.
    That said, considering its extensive ties to the IRGC, I would be extremely wary of using it for anything but the stated positions of the IRGC, similar to how we've treated Russian and Chinese state-backed media. Their promotion of COVID conspiracy theories makes me think WP:GUNREL is a solid option, if not deprecation similar to WP:PRESSTV. The Kip 22:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth a formal RfC then? It looks like there has been some past discussion of Tasnim (1, 2, 3, 4) but no RfC. Amigao (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn’t be a bad idea, considering the Signpost context. The Kip 19:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2404:3100:1886:ACC4:1:0:743C:5D62 (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Tasnim News Agency

    What is the reliability of Tasnim News Agency?

    Tasnim News Agency of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was referenced in a recent WP:SIGNPOST issue in relation a recent Townhall.com opinion piece concerning systematic "disinformation and state propaganda" efforts on Wikipedia. Past discussion of Tasnim (1, 2, 3, 4). - Amigao (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey

    The typical political articles (e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) are fairly similar to U.S. and Western news, except from an Iranian-focused anti-Western political perspective, rather than the "Iran, the 'under-developed', Axis of evil, who must be sanctioned, who is dangerously close to having the nuclear weapons like we have"-perspective. Although the articles typically lack authors, the bulk of those I reviewed provided sources of the claims they were reporting on. The U.S. and U.K. mainstream media rely on Tasmin for their source of the Iran government opinion (e.g. [8]--a source used by Wikipedia at Iran and U.K. oil tanker seizures), so they clearly believe it is reliable for claims by the government. Why when there is a conflict between Western powers and Iran must the information coming from Iran be filtered through the biases of Western-media, when it is available directly from Iran--the source of the opinion?
    As opined I here, I have concerns about RfCs like these designed to blacklist any "state-funded" media that gives an opinion that challenges or differs from the U.S. State Department agenda. And, of course, the state department is happy to try to censor media in Iraq that disagree with them, by focusing only on their worst behavior: [9],[10],[11]. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Option 5 sounds correct to me.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    This outlet has been mentioned only briefly in the article. Could you maybe add some details about the Covid disinformation that was added to Wikipedia using Tasnim, and provide other examples, if you have them? Alaexis¿question? 12:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure. Here's one about Tasnim's Covid disinformation mixed with antisemitic tropes. - Amigao (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amigao: The Anti-Defamation League is an advocacy organization. Although, I do understand this RfC which was closed and given the "green-light" at WP:RSP, from my reading of the responses, most editors appropriately said it should be attributed, especially with regard to issues regarding claiming a person or entity is antisemitic. A blog whose title includes "Iran Regime Makes Jews its Bogeyman" and first section is titled "Accusing Jews of Sorcery" does not ring of objective reporting.
    Regardless of just how reliable that opinion of what the Iran Regime is doing and their assessment of the Tasnim new articles mentioned in it (which are certainly worth looking at to see if the assessment they are as bad as the article says they are), the question Alaexis asked above, which I also have is: "Could you maybe add some details about the Covid disinformation that was added to Wikipedia using Tasnim?" [emphasis added.] Wikipedia is not mentioned in the article at all from my search of the term. I would like to see if any of those outrageous claims lasted for more than a few minutes before being deleted. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I somehow missed the response, thanks to @Amigao.
    @David Tornheim, as to relying on ADL, we can sidestep their report and look at the original articles. This one, assuming that Google translate is correct, claims that the Medici were Jewish and devised the current worldwide usury system. Alaexis¿question? 08:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alaexis: I agree that article in Arabic is serious work of conspiracy. I tried--without success--to find the same article in English (or anything similarly outlandish) at tasnimnew.com/en, with this search or Tasnim News archive search. I reviewed numerous English articles from the site, and I found nothing so outrageous. That one seems to be an outlier. Have you looked at a covid search of the site?
    These are some of the articles I came across: [12], [13], [14], this one focuses only on everything negative they could come up with to say about the (U.S.-made) Pfizer vaccine--contrasting sharply with U.S. reporting that tended to focus only on the benefits, [15], [16], [17], [18]. It didn’t seem to be any more or less scientific, objective, or a-political than U.S. mainstream media [19], [20], BBC [21] or an article like this from Iran International. Compare the articles you see in all these mainstream media with those you find on Google scholar: [22], [23], [24]. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, the Combating Terrorism Center referenced a selection of Tasnim's Covid disinformation here and Polygraph.info referenced Tasnim's false claim that there is a linkage between the Ukrainian military and ISIS. - Amigao (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is that any good propaganda mostly contains truth - it wouldn't have worked otherwise.
    The problem with "follow the guidelines" approach is that there are bound to be editors who think that "Jews invented Covid" is a valid viewpoint which needs to be added to Wikipedia, and then everyone would have to spend their time arguing with them.
    Designating a source as unreliable shifts the responsibility on the editor who uses this source: they need to convince others that it's a perfectly good source for the length of tunnels in Ilam or for the politics of gun ownership in the US (it's used in both articles now). Alaexis¿question? 20:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I suggest moving this RfC to the same section as the initial live discussion above, as it seems silly to split the conversation? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. The Kip 06:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The RfC mentions an opinion piece on the Townhall website which referenced Tasnim. I did not find the TownHall article very persuasive. It only mentions Tasnim once, where it says it was used to add "false information about the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran". However, the Townhall article does not say what false information was added and does not provide a link to the claimed addition so that the claim can be verified. The article is poor in other ways. It makes a number of claims, including about Wikipedia editors and admins, without providing a way of verifying the claims. Two of the writer's claims can be checked by looking at the Wikipedia articles to which he refers. The writer says "in the Wikipedia article on the "Barakat Foundation," details about its connection to the powerful Iranian institution known as the Execution of Imam Khomeini's Order were deleted". The Execution of Imam Khomeini's Order is mentioned eight times on the Barakat Foundation page. The writer also says "in the Wikipedia article on the "Mahsa Amini protests," a Guardian article was used to falsely claim that demonstrators chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," when the article actually reported on pro-government rallies as a response to the protests". Afaict, we have used The Guardian article correctly in the Mahsa Amini protests article, including its claim that pro-government protesters shouted “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”. Burrobert (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ScienceDirect Topics (AI-generated pages)

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

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

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

    RfC: ScienceDirect topics

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

    Responses (ScienceDirect)

    • Yes. Last night I started attempting to replace some of these links and was immediately discouraged by both the overwhelming number of them and by how many were very recently added. It is definitely not clear to most people that SD Topics would have any problems at all, to the extent that I suspect almost no one casually using it would even consider the possibility it is GUNREL. I certainly didn't realize until I saw this thread yesterday that it was AI, despite repeatedly trying to use it to find background literature for my dissertation (and this explains why I occasionally encountered wrong shit in its summaries, and why I was never able to figure out how to cite what I thought were actual review articles...).
    JoelleJay (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. They are truthy bits of out-of-context information and most people adding them will not know they are unreliable. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes per above. --Leyo 18:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes per above. In my own uses of "AI" (LLM) tools to try go generate summaries, abstracts, timelines, and other "this should be easy" digests of source material, the results have been uniformly awful, with virtually every single sentence having to be corrected in one way or another (from errors of omission to errors of focus/emphasis/nuance, to frequent outright factual errors, including "hallucinations" both of claims in particular sources and of entire sources). Maybe someday we'll be able to trust such tools to properly summarize material, but that some day is not today. Never forget that what LLMs do is try to provide an answer that will look like what should be a correct/expected result. It is not a fact-checking process of any kind, but a form of simulation. That we're able to get anything useful out of it at all (e.g. it can be used to generate simplex examples of correct, though often inelegant, Javascript or Python functions to do various things, as well as regular expressions as long as they are not very complex or do not have complex test cases to match) verges on astounding.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, as we're setting editors up for failure by not warning them. Would these be useful ELs, though? Mach61 (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. On topics for WP:MED, ScienceDirect is a commonly-applied, unsatisfying source typically providing limited search results from lower-quality journals. It is frequently selected by novice editors, requiring followup editing for source accuracy in the article. More experienced medical editors would have no difficulty finding better sources by searching PubMed with the appropriate search terms. Note for the cleanup if replacing 1000+ ScienceDirect sources is the outcome: a bot can be developed to remove them (consult user GreenC), leaving a [citation needed] tag, but laborious manual checking of the sourced statement and editing by a volunteer are needed to refill with a good source. Zefr (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Similar to everyone else, I have never seen it be a reliable source for research purposes, so it should be discouraged for novice editors.Ldm1954 (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes: I was unaware that those topic pages are machine generated summaries, so an edit filter would be helpful. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure if machine generated content. These can be problematic, but I use the sources Science Direct cites instead since as those are not AI generated and are instead published material by researchers. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. It's just misleading. Editors should cite the articles directly. Cortador (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes per all above, and probably heading for a SNOW here. The Kip 06:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, having only caught up on these pages not being the work of an editorial team due to this discussion. I think the way they do it is pretty clever and the pages can be useful, but I'll definitely be more cautious about assuming any of the papers in there are actually representative for the field as a whole, knowing what I know now. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vaush, opinion sources

    The following sources are considered unreliable, but I don't think we should consider a source unreliable just because we don't like the platform. There is not a single "reliable source" that writes about this issue, because it is getting silenced by the media.

    We should consider the sources on an individual basis. Please, don't reject them just because. Please, take your time to read through them. Most of them also have their own references and sources.

    Sources:

    1. Vaush on rationalwiki.org
    2. article on thepostmillennial.com
    3. Vaush Opens Porn Folder On Stream (knowyourmeme.com)
    4. clips from his streams, posted on YouTube
    5. thread on r/VaushV subreddit
    6. article on eviemagazine.com
    7. article on nationalcybersecurity.com
    8. article on xkilllakillfan69x.wordpress.com


    I still have some faith in society. I still believe there are people that don't want this issue to be silenced and forced under the rug. Matthias197 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that the matter is severe and deals with a living person is reason for us to be extra scrupulous about sourcing. I don't recognize every source here, but a few of them are immediately and clearly not sources that we would ever consider acceptable for this sort of material -- an open wiki, a self-published blog, a subreddit.... they all fly in the face of our rules on sourcing material about living persons from self-published sources. I'm not sure who is supposed to be silencing this, but it is in the nature of Wikipedia to follow reliable sources, not to lead them based on unreliable ones. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my statement: the topic is severe. The matter appears to be just an unpopular opinion, and assumptions that people wish to assert based on that. Thinking something could be legal is not the same as condoning something, much less engaging in it. (A friend and I once planned to take the "yes" side on a "should the Nazis have been allowed to stage a march in Skokie, Illinois" debate, but any attempt to cast us a pro-Nazi rather than taking the ACLU side of free speech would've been confronted with the fact that we were both folks that the Nazis would've gleefully killed.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously not. And do you really think there's some worldwide media conspiracy to cover for this youtuber? Sheesh. VQuakr (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be a clear violation of BLP, you need to wait for an RS. FortunateSons (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think we can source a child pornography accusation to anything less than a gold-plated RS, you may need to review WP:BLP - David Gerard (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an interesting conundrum sometimes. A person's existence and basic activities are covered in enough reliable sources to justify an article, but then some social media outrage-of-the-moment fails to gain coverage by that same media, as it is just not as important as the fans and foes think it is. So to the outside non-Wikipedian, it looks like we're "censoring," when of course nothing of the sort is happening. Matthias197, consider the possibility that this just doesn't matter.
    I'd also like to take the liberty of toning town the section title, as putting a person's name and "CP" side-by-side is a bit overboard. Zaathras (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (coming from Talk:Vaush) Posting this here in case anyone comes across Evie Magazine (eviemagazine.com) in the future and wanted to check the archives. I went back today to their homepage and saw an article titled "What Is A Woman?" (archive), by the same author of the one linked above, which proudly misgenders a trans man and uses the phrase "gender ideology" unironically. The further it goes the less sane it becomes. Wholly not reliable if they cannot accept the widespread scientific consensus of gender & sex. SWinxy (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles do indeed get weirder the deeper you go. Some light reading on the publication: [25], [26]. We should not be using this in any way. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rolling Stone and Vice are two left leaning publications which really are rooted in pop culture, similar to what Evie seems to be as a right leaning women’s publication. Simply pointing to the fact that those two don’t like Evie specifically for its political leaning is irrelevant. The basis of a valid source is NOT if it appeals to a certain side or not. Making arguments like this goes again WP:NPV Friedbyrd (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    lol, Evie publishes COVID conspiracy theories and election conspiracy theories. That's the sort of thing that tends to lead to deprecation. It's extremely clear that Evie is an unreliable source at the very least - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Evie publishes COVID conspiracy theories and election conspiracy theories"
    Looking into it, the posted Vice article links to another Vice article which is complaining about various Evie opinion pieces which I went to. They have articles about Covid, but I couldnt find any "Covid conspiracy theories." The ones referenced in the Vice article were ones about the mortality rate of children from covid and the safety of getting the vaccine as a pregnant woman, but both of these were based on information from the CDC and the New England Journal of Medicine.
    As I pointed out, both Rolling Stone and Vice are two left leaning pop culture focused publications whos main gripe with Evie is that it is a right leaning pop culture publication, of course they arent going to like them and they are hardly authoritative sources themselves. Simply saying that you or a writer at the Rolling Stone dont like them is NOT a valid argument not to use them as a source. Wikipedia is not a partisan site. However, I would certainly say that we shouldnt use Evie as a source for issues like Covid of course, but when it comes to culture issues, in this case, their article on the internet streamer Vaush promoting child pornography and his disgusting history with that stuff, its very reliable. The article itself includes video clips of Vaush saying these things directly so theres really no excuse to not include this.
    Friedbyrd (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you seriously think Evie is a sufficient source to make child pornography accusations in Wikipedia, then I must strongly urge you not to attempt to edit BLPs on Wikipedia on competence grounds - David Gerard (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this supposed to be some sort of counter argument? Because you arent even making a point. Again, the Evie article includes video footage of Vaush outright saying these disgusting things so its not an accusation, its literally his own words and this is a question of how to include that information in the article. I think its also important to remember that Vaush is a fringe e-celebrity, so this means that no serious publication like CBS or NBC is going to cover this stuff, only more lower level pop-culture publications will and pointing out that these lean right politically is not at all a reason not to use them as a source.
    Friedbyrd (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be beneficial if you familiarised yourself with Wikipedias policies before further engaging this discussion. FortunateSons (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am familiar which is why I pointing out that there is no real reason not to include Evies article as a source. I would suggest others take this advice themselves and read through the BLP guidelines. Feel free to point out specifically what policy you think Im misinterpreting and why though because comments like this are not at all productive.
    Friedbyrd (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP is pretty detailed about the high requirements for sources, let’s start there. FortunateSons (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we all know what BLP is. What specific part of that policy do you feel would be violated by including information about his own words regarding CP?
    Friedbyrd (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.” Evie is disputed as an RS at best, and clearly not a high-quality source.
    “Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.” Therefore, even if there was RS coverage, inclusion in the article would not be guaranteed
    ”The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.” FortunateSons (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article on Vaush already uses “not high quality” level sources such as Daily Beast and his own YouTube videos as sources, so the argument that this is the issue is blatantly false. And per BLPSELFPUB this is allowed concerning subjects publishing their own viewpoint. It is beyond debate and is an objective fact that Vaush has said some pretty disgusting things concerning child pornography, things like the Evie article simply add additional context to this. Like I already pointed out, Vaush is a fringe internet celebrity so legit publications are not going to care enough about him to cover his views on CP. This is evident by the Vaush article relaying heavily on publications like Daily Beast and Kotaku.
    The main contention mentioned is that Post Millennial and Evie are right leaning, which isn’t a valid excuse not to use them.
    Friedbyrd (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources that are "not high quality" including self-published sources can sometimes be used in a BLP, mostly for routine details like events the subject attends, when a person was born, where they live, and other things like that which nobody would reasonably challenge. Contentious or controversial claims, positive or negative, must be sourced to only high quality sources. I can't think of any claim more controversial than support for child pornography. The highest quality sources are required for that, and it is non-negotiable. If there are other poor/marginal sources used to support contentious claims in the Vaush article, they should be removed too.
    I agree that Vaush is a "fringe internet celebrity" that doesn't have much coverage in those types of sources. When we have a choice between complete coverage of a living person based on questionable sources or incomplete coverage with good sources, then we must choose the incomplete coverage. I know how bad it can feel when we have information we can't share on Wikipedia, but that's the balance that we've struck in the interest of protecting real living people from harm. Maintaining that balance is a constant process but it is very important. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the subject himself has made several videos clearly and publicly expressing his viewpoint, and is by definition the only authority on his viewpoint, how can we not treat his own statements as reliably sourced? We're not talking about leaked private conversations, this is his own expressed position. 120.29.2.50 (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not for something like this FortunateSons (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Not for something like this” what guideline is this based on? You’re allowed to use sources like YouTube when it comes to a person making claims certain claims about themselves like their personal life or their own personal viewpoints. The wiki articles currently already does this.
    Friedbyrd (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SELFSOURCE we would have to fully include his narrative and only his narrative, which would provide minimal value and is not in accordance with policy FortunateSons (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, well including his view that child pornography should be legal as a fact of its own would at least be consistent with the rest of the article.
    Friedbyrd (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no love for many of the things that Vaush believes in (which I believe is quite clear based on my own editing history), but his stated belief is that child slavery and child pornography should be illegal, which he has repeatedly clarified and which really isn’t controversial .
    There are other views on can credibly criticise Vaush which he has not clarified or denounced (but which aren’t supported by RS either), but at this point, I would recommend you Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass (pun intended). FortunateSons (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what "widespread scientific consensus of gender & sex" are you referring to, because there is no consensus. Conservatives insist that gender and gender are the same thing. Only liberals think otherwise. Matthias197 (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fascinating. Everyone has to be a 'conservative' or a 'liberal', and has to conform in every way to this, over every topic. No room for anyone to be anything in between, or to be undecided. Talk about enforcing roles on those who'd rather decide for themselves what opinions they'd like to hold... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted this in the other talk thread on the Vaush page, but again, you not liking a certain article from this publication is hardly a real justification not to use it as a source.
    Friedbyrd (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all horrific violations of BLP and not remotely reliable as sources, absolutely not. The Kip 02:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 1 and Source 3 are unreliable by default as they are open wikis. Source 4 (the subject's own YouTube channel) may be usable in some contexts, but including it without any secondary sources is probably undue weight. Partofthemachine (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Big fat nope The holy policies and guidelines, especially the BLP ones, do not support including this without some serious reliable sourcing.
    Also, the only reason I know who this guy is is that I have a close relative who’s going through a phase.
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    oko press Poland- propaganda can be reliable source?

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

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

    RFC: OKO.press

    What is the reliability of OKO.press?

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

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

    Survey (OKO.press)

    • Undecided so far. I will do some research and make a determination !vote soon. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 — The source seems to be reliable in their reporting. I have not found inaccurate reporting in their articles. This may appear to be a little bit of an Al Jazeera, where if it is state-sponsored, the reliability of their reporting of facts does not seem to be impeded. As mentioned below this !vote by Kip, the original nominator/idea starter of this RfC, Jarek19800, was that OKO.press was propaganda based on this article, which I have to admit, I am unable to actually translate past a “please subscribe” style addition they have. As the idea of this was Jarek19800s, could you provide an article indicating OKO.press either reported something factually wrong or a secondary non OKO.press source saying it is propaganda? Unless that occurs, I must stick with option 1. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. The RfC was started by me due to duel-CTOPS nature involved with where the possible issue about this source originated from and I will note, COI is a very high possibility here, which was brought up at AN, leading to the perm EC protection on the page. Basically, RFC was a technicality since this has been at RSN before and is CTOPS related. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Al Jazeera; as far as I can tell Agora, who partly funds OKO, is independent rather than state-controlled. The Kip 23:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 The claim above of the piece admitting they’re “anti-PiS propaganda” seems to be… off-base, to say the least. Admittedly I’m reading a Google machine-translated version, but from what I gather, the linked piece says they were founded independently with some funding from Agora due to well-documented concerns about the PiS’ increasing control of Polish state media. Biased? Perhaps a little, but on the whole they seem to be doing valid research/reporting, and I’m not exactly sold by some of the original nominator (Jarek, not WEW) arguments regarding it being “blatant propaganda.” France24 and Politico’s endorsement of their reporting + the Index on Censorship award work even further in their favor. As per usual, attribute for opinion pieces, but facts-wise they seem a-okay. The Kip 06:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for your remarks. I will try to be as short as possible which can influence some clarity. Let's follow your logic: main media company in Poland Agora creates a platform Oko press in order to fight PIS. After eight years (current) there is a new govt anti PIS and 95% of media market is completely in hands of anti PIS media including Agora. If following your logic Oko press would be reliable source they shall go against this media monopoly now,shall not they? in fact they continue to fight PIS. More generally can be a media monopoly reliable by definition? Moreover head of Oko press Pacewicz is former Agora executive so let's forget about independent funding of Oko press.Personally I prefer to judge reliability of media by its origin and definition(for example it is obvious for all that any mainstream media in russia now is not reliable source) than on base of one or two false informations but I will check what I can do also in this direction. By the way how I can prove that some information was false when there is a media monopoly in the country and the false info is local from media which covers only local issues ? Jarek19800 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You say: "for example it is obvious for all that any mainstream media in russia now is not reliable source". That idea did not get much traction on RSNB recently. But even if this is the case, Poland is a very different country. My very best wishes (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument essentially boils down to “they’re propaganda because they disagree with PiS and are popular,” which is entirely personal opinion, and your claim of a “media monopoly” is both wholly uncited and outright false in the first place. Sorry that I and others disagree. The Kip 05:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    General discussion (OKO.press)

    • I would not describe prior discussions about this source as having a consensus for reliability. the February 2021 discussion was not formally closed and did not have a clear consensus. The same can be said of the October 2021 RfC not identified above, which had a numerical majority for general reliability but saw a lot of sockpuppet disruption and didn't have much in the way of real discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops! I did not realize a 2nd discussion occurred. Would you be ok if I add that in the discussion? Also just to note, the prior discussion I linked earlier was considered in a different discussion (I don’t remember which of the 129 articles it was on), to be reliable under a 7-2 vote premise. That assessment was not my own doing, but more like a copy/paste of the assessment in that discussion…whatever article talk page it was on. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, go ahead. signed, Rosguill talk 14:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This move to RfC seems a bit abrupt. The discussion in the thread above didn't even get off the ground. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having an explicit political agenda doesn't make them unreliable (per WP:BIASED). Are there examples of them publishing falsehoods? Alaexis¿question? 21:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There doesn't seem to be; to be quite blunt, this issue seems to have been raised entirely on the argument that being founded as a counterweight to PiS-biased media and partly funded by a liberal-leaning news organization makes them "propaganda," which is an extremely flimsy basis for such a claim. The Kip 22:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In 2018 polish Ministry of Justice published a statement accusing Oko.press of making false claims about financing public campaign by that ministry. [27] I couldn't find any articles investigating it further, though. Saletri (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      let's focus on fake news spreaded by oko press. this one confirms that they are propaganda tool used to take part in political war without any link to reality. all articles will be in Polish unfortunately and from media which are not a mainstream (media monopol in Poland) but fact checking is more accurate here https://www.tysol.pl/a73905-ekspert-do-oko-press-jestescie-propagandystami-lukaszenki-i-putina-bede-was-rozliczal-z-fake-news Jarek19800 (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Considering the PiS government was notorious for attempted media crackdowns, I’m not sure if I’d trust their word when accusing an independent outlet of making false claims. Governments are rarely reliable sources for criticism about themselves. The Kip 05:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I ask you the Kip to be deleted from this discussion on the reason that you started to chase me on Wikipedia with a manner to delete my factual revisions of the articles. By chance you make it by hiding the facts concerning Soviet murderers which I hope has connection with defending left- wing media portal. of course we can try to say that only by coincidence you deleted my change on Mikhail Kalinin few days ago but such idea has is stupid so you have no reliability to discuss media reliability. Jarek19800 (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You asserted on the article that he held sole responsibility for the massacre, when the source provided simply listed him as a co-signatory. Feel free to re-add with a source confirming the former claim, but on Wikipedia we don't engage in original research. Nice personal attack, by the way. The Kip 21:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is not opening the discussion on topic of if relevant was my add to article. it is about you chased my add ons to articles on wikipedia on base of this thread here. it is of course just coincidence in both you defend left-wing elements. anyway in my opinion it is not ethic and wikipedial to transport your personel feelings from one article to another one only on base of author. In my opinion you should not continue to comment this thread to keep Wikipedia neutral as much as possible. Jarek19800 (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Again;
      • Yes, I checked your edit history as I was slightly suspicious of your behavior given your assertions about OKO. This led to me finding your WP:OR regarding Kalinin. I’ve addressed it at the talk page, if you have a source backing your claim feel free to add it but the source you utilized doesn’t.
      • More PAs/violations of AGF won’t help your case here. If you truly feel I’m in the wrong, take it to WP:ANI and see what they think. Even without my “violations of neutrality,” the consensus thus far seems to heartily disagree with your assertions of “propaganda.”
      The Kip 00:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Having explicit political agenda doesn't make them (media) unreliable" true but on one condition: if there is no media monopoly in country or if opposite political media are not judged as unreliable. it means that political agenda in media is allowed only if media market is really and in reality free which is not a case in most countries including currently Poland. Jarek19800 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi everyone, I'm following the discussion and just wanted to add my 2 cents on the issue: OKO.press seems to be one of the media sitting on the fence when it comes to reliability. I read some of their articles (translated, though), but I cannot say that I have sufficient knowledge on the Polish media landscape to make a definitive call here. Why I am writing this comment is to say that reliability is not a black-or-white type question, as some articles may have a more political lean than others, reliability can depend on the contributor writing the specific piece, and finally, reliability changes over time.
      However, just to be on the cautious side, I suggest that we shouldn't use them as a sole or predominant source supporting the reliability of other sources, such as Visegrad 24 (because this is how the whole conversation began). Milentie Pokojni (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi I agree . it will put us forward until I will have time to present more comprehensive analisys of the total lack of reliability of oko press and open new thread. In meantime I found pretty reliable summary of current situation with media in Poland
      https://deadline.com/2024/03/poland-tvp-donald-tusk-recovering-1235844739/
      it is not perfect because forgets that for example in tv market we used to have 3 mainstream media Polsat- owned by Polish oligarch who was secret collaborator of communist secret police,TVN- owned by US left- wing owner and Public TV which was invaded and taken over in night by current left- wing govt security forces. by accident all 3 tv's are fiercely pro-government and have ca.95% of tv market. Conservative part of population which is not less than 30% has 5%. if this is media monopoly or not judge yourself Jarek19800 (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I also propose to summarize and finish this conversation with verdict: Generally unreliable. I found a final proof supporting such verdict on their official page in english https://oko.press/about-us they say that they will in same way question and control any govt. in Poland current or future. It is proved drastic lie as you will not find even one article made by them with criticism on current govt.after 3 month of its activity but you will find in same time dozens on current opposition. it is manipulative, propaganda media so Generally unreliable is adequate verdict. Jarek19800 (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    exxact citation is "We are a civic tool to control the government. The current one and every one after it." Jarek19800 (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, bias does not automatically equal unreliability, and besides that,
    I also propose to summarize and finish this conversation with verdict: Generally unreliable.
    One editor cannot unilaterally label a source unreliable, especially when three other editors besides myself have come to the same conclusion that it is reliable. If you still fail to understand that, there may be other issues at play here. The Kip 02:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment for Jarek19800: A slight add-on to what The Kip noted. Wikipedia is based on a consensus between editors. You may want to check out that part of Wikipedia policy. Everything on Wikipedia is build by a community consensus between editors. No matter what happens, a discussion here won't end the world. A key thing here is Wikipedia is not about winning, but rather building and making a consensus, not based on the number of "votes" (commonly known as !votes), but rather based on the merits of their discussion.
    This does not apply to this situation directly, but I wanted to point out the main theme of Wikipedia is Verifiability, not "truth". Everything on Wikipedia has to be verifiable by a secondary source. If you believe or know something to be true, but don't have a secondary source for it, it means nothing on Wikipedia. Again, not directly related to this situation, but a while ago, there was a confirmed instance of that ideology (based on community consensus) and I wrote up a short essay on it {Verifiability, not truth in action}. In that instance, a primary source confirmed new information after secondary sources had published the then-outdated information. After a long discussion occurred, it was found that Wikipedia needs to abide by the secondary sources and technically published a factually inaccurate table that was verifiable. I don't know if that was helpful or not, but hopefully it was. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully understand the concept of verifiability. if I say about truth I exactly have this meaning. mu beliefs are not important at all. I exactly gave min 2 undisputable examples that oko press itself directly writes" I am a liar, i was established to manipulate with fake news" It is a fact. no-one questioned that my links are unreal. It should give immediate effect of giving such verdict ( to get consensus). if my links are not true as experienced editors you should easily prove it. if verification is real than you should agree on consensus even if it is against your feelings. it is the logic you were kind to present which i fully agree. Jarek19800 (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WeatherWriter:, I feel as though WP:CIR may be taking effect here. The Kip 01:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In discussion I found that you seem to put a big importance to examples of fake news as a proof of unreliability of the source. I was reluctant to this idea because I was afraid it will be hard to find facts given by mainstream media. Oko press is rather niche media in Poland and due to media monopoly mentioned by me earlier ,it rather favorized by other media platforms. Fortunately I quickly found some sound proofs as below. Good to notice that mainstream media like rmf,wp, rp.pl,money.pl confirmed lack of reliability of oko press. In min.one case court confirmed it. There is also interesting info on special treatment of negative comments by oko press (www.donald.pl)
    https://www.tysol.pl/a74121-polacy-przepedzaja-kurdow-przez-rzeke-a-na-zdjeciu-litewski-slup-graniczny-fejk-dziennikarza-oko-press#.YYT_XnMK4hw.twitter
    https://www.rp.pl/polityka/art1316381-godek-wygralam-w-trybie-wyborczym-z-oko-press
    https://www.lasy.gov.pl/pl/informacje/aktualnosci/pellet-z-lasow-panstwowych
    https://wykop.pl/link/5605383/obnazamy-fakenewsa-klamczuszki-z-oko-press
    https://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/polska/news-oko-press-klamstwo-i-manipulacja,nId,7122926#crp_state=1
    https://kresy.pl/wydarzenia/misiewicz-chcial-pozbawic-gen-skrzypczaka-stopnia-mon-dementuje-to-fejk/
    https://www.gov.pl/web/udsc/oswiadczenie-ws-artykulu-portalu-okopress
    https://www.donald.pl/artykuly/VZQaxXC6/to-tylko-teoria-zarzuca-okopress-lamanie-etyki-dziennikarskiej-i-kasowanie-komentarzy-pod-artykulem
    https://wiadomosci.wp.pl/tylko-w-wp-trzy-falszywe-historie-wiceministra-patryk-jaki-odpiera-zarzuty-oko-press-skandal-absurd-kuriozum-6086449113904257a
    https://www.money.pl/gospodarka/wiadomosci/artykul/sebastian-lukaszewicz-oko-press,152,0,2245272.html
    https://www.press.pl/tresc/60211,oko_press-przeprosilo-konrada-wojciechowskiego_-_fakt_-prosi-o-wyjasnienia Jarek19800 (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Jarek19800 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Tasnim News Agency". Media Bias Fact Check.
    2. ^ du Vall, Marta; Majorek, Marta (2022). "Information management and engaged journalism in the conditions of manipulated mainstream media transmission – OKO.press as the example". ISSN 1899-6264. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
    3. ^ Polynczuk-Alenius, Kinga (2024-01-31). "Russian imperialism, racist differentiation and refugees at the Polish borders: Media as 'borderscapers'". European Journal of Communication. doi:10.1177/02673231231224377. ISSN 0267-3231.
    4. ^ Fajfer, Alicja. "The Costs of Deterring Migration on the Polish-Belarusian Border in 2021." CROSS: 83.
    5. ^ Radde-Antweiler, Kerstin; Zeiler, Xenia (2020-10-29). The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Journalism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-39608-0.

    +972 magazine

    At Weaponization of antisemitism, the opening sentence of the lead is:

    The weaponization of antisemitism, also described as the instrumentalization of antisemitism, is the making of false charges of antisemitism for political purposes.[1][2][3][4]

    Is + 972Mag reliable in support of the sentence (cite 4)? The most recent substantive discussion of 972Mag was in 2015 here. Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If this was an RfC, 972 would be a 2 (probably). They have a significant left-wing bias and can be rather ‚anti-Israel‘, so I would recommend all the grains of salt and clearly attribute opinions, specifically on Judaism, Israel (and Israeli orgs) and Antisemitism.
    That being said, they do decent reporting, including investigative, and do provide value, so many uses are acceptable. FortunateSons (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding this specific use case, I would probably refrain from using them, as they have some rather niche/fringe views, particularly in regards to the IHRA definition. FortunateSons (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is not being used in reference to IHRA and the cited quote does not mention IHRA either. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion has gone far off topic, focus on the source itself. The Kip 05:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Yes, but a disagreement with the most main-stream definition of antisemitism is less than ideal when discussing if antisemitism is weaponised; in addition, there are actual cases where IHRA and other definitions are genuinely being weaponised, but I’m not confident that 972 could recognise them due to their own highly polarised views. FortunateSons (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The IHRA is a political body, not an academic one. Calling its definition the most main-stream definition of antisemitism absent peer-reviewed backing is misleading. Our article on its Working definition of antisemitism only uses the word "mainstream" in the following context: mainstream academic and legal opinion was overwhelmingly critical of the IHRA definition. The source attached to that claim isn't ideal, but the overall content of the Criticism section is well-backed by peer-reviewed publications and is rather damning with respect to the IHRA definition. If anything, criticism of the IHRA definition is a sign of aligning with the dominant position in academic RS, not a sign of a marginal view. signed, Rosguill talk 14:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IHRA is broadly adopted by around 30 countries and is (at least partially) used by major organisations and companies. While there are competing definitions, IHRA is what is most commonly used in practice (to the best of my knowledge). Additionally, that article has a wide range of issues, but that is a problem for another day. FortunateSons (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Political decisions by political bodies are not scholarship and not what we base our articles on. nableezy - 15:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but political decisions are a strong indication for being „the most main-stream definition of antisemitism“, no? FortunateSons (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not. Political bodies frequently make statements because they think that the message will win them votes, not because they think it's true or best. As an example, some years ago, one of the politically minded health groups put out a definition of Cancer survivor that included friends and family members. Why? It's popular with family members to say "When Grandma had cancer, we all had cancer together", and they wanted support from the voters whose loved ones had cancer. It wasn't because they thought that the cancer was spread across a whole family's worth of bodies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is an RS claiming it to be the most wide-spread: https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-728773 FortunateSons (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Jerusalem Post, a paper with a consistent partisan slant, is a considerably lower quality source than scholarship, especially for something that is not news. And it is reporting on its adoption by political bodies, not what scholarship has to say about it. nableezy - 15:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree on your assessment of JP, but that’s also simply not the question at hand. FortunateSons (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question at hand is if 972 is reliable for this material, and despite you not liking their views they are. nableezy - 15:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The messages you are responding to are about a specific, only tangentially related claim about which definition is most main stream, which is IHRA. FortunateSons (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, mainstream here does not mean adopted by political bodies, when academic sources are largely critical of something it is not "most mainstream". You can keep trying to make it so that your preferred views are the ones on which everything is judged, but that isnt how it works. nableezy - 16:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cambridge Dictionary disagrees with you here; while I believe that some of the other definitions definitely have merit, IHRA is simply the most broadly adopted one. FortunateSons (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The political bodies that have adopted that definition absolutely are not "most people", and there is no evidence that most people have accepted the IHRA definition. nableezy - 16:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So which definition do you think has broader or comparable acceptance? FortunateSons (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's stay on topic @FortunateSons, @Nableezy. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had intended to say academic consensus, I would have gone with that, but I haven’t (for good reason, as there is no consensus for any version.) FortunateSons (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good thing this is an educational project. Where we care more about an academic viewpoint over a political one. Im going to stop on this completely pointless tangent youve taken us on, toodles. nableezy - 16:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, but I wouldn't use the word mainstream to describe academic consensus. The mainstream belief is that ghosts exist. The academic consensus is that they don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a second (more left-wing) source, which refers to IHRA as „A leading definition of antisemitism“ (in the headline and critically). FortunateSons (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:HEADLINES and "a leading" is not "the most mainstream". This isnt Talk:Working definition of antisemitism. nableezy - 16:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is forcing you to engage with my response to another users comment. I’m just giving them the opportunity to engage with their criticism of my point, and responding to them and not you to allow you to stop on this completely pointless tangent youve taken us on, toodles. FortunateSons (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This does appear to be a diversion from the topic at hand, so enough already. Selfstudier (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Solid source, attribution at most. nableezy - 14:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal beef. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • That is precisely the opposite of what our policies say, and even if it were true that this Israeli publication that predominately publishes the work of Jewish Israeli journalists were "anti-Israel", you dont get to say that only Zionist sources are allowed here. nableezy - 19:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nableezy, I never said that. Dial back please. Zanahary (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You said that because of a supposed anti-Israel slant it should not be used in these topics. That is, again, precisely the opposite of what our policies say, and even if it were true that this Israeli publication that predominately publishes the work of Jewish Israeli journalists were "anti-Israel". And, again, you dont get to demand that only "pro-Israel" sources be used. NPOV does not mean censoring viewpoints one does not like, and reliability has nothing to do with bias. Even if the completely unsupported notion that this source is biased was true. nableezy - 20:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      You dont get to demand that only "pro-Israel" sources be used

      I never said this. Zanahary (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, you just said the obverse, that supposed "anti-Israel" sources may not be used. nableezy - 20:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll let the remaining misunderstanding sit, since it looks like you're done accusing me of "demanding" that "only Zionist sources are allowed here".
      To any editors reading this thread who would like some clarity on my view: I think +972 has an anti-Israel bias, and an opinion editorial published by the magazine should not be used as a source to define a concept pertaining to antisemitism. Notable views expressed in said source can be included in the article, if attributed. Zanahary (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is not an "opinion editorial", it is by Mairav Zonszein, somebody who has written at Just Security, Jewish Currents, The Nation, Haaretz, New York Review of Books, Time, and I can keep going. 972 is a professional news and analysis site run by professional journalists and editors, and no it does not have "an anti-Israel bias", an assertion made with 0 supporting evidence. nableezy - 20:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The piece's authorship has no bearing on whether or not it is an op-ed. You should go hassle FortunateSons for asserting exactly what I said without links to back his view up. Or you could AGF, explain your view, and ask for substantiation of views that aren't yours. I'm out of patience for your weird, unprovoked aggression, though. Zanahary (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Responding to bogus assertions made without evidence and showing they are bogus and lack evidence is not weird, unprovoked aggression, and claiming bias has anything to do with reliability shows a failure to understand WP:RS at its most basic level. nableezy - 21:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You didn’t show anything to be bogus. You pointed out that I hadn’t backed up my evaluation of the source. A source’s bias does pertain to how it ought to be used. But if you so strongly disagree, you’re sure of your interpretation of my comments, and you have competence concerns, go ahead and raise them. Zanahary (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Let's stay on topic @Zanahary, @Nableezy. - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will grant to nableezy that even if saying that a periodical being critical of the state of Israel means it should be avoided in statements of fact regarding Israel, Palestine, Judaism, and antisemitism isn't the exact same as saying only Zionist sources are allowed, it's very close to saying that. If editors avoid sources that criticize the state of Israel, doesn't that end up with the remaining 'usable' sources being those which are not critical of the state of Israel—those which either implicitly are uncritical of or which explicitly favor elements of Zionism. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Clarified above: "I think +972 has an anti-Israel bias, and an opinion editorial published by the magazine should not be used as a source to define a concept pertaining to antisemitism. Notable views expressed in said source can be included in the article, if attributed."
      I also didn't say "sources that criticize the state of Israel"—that's every good source—I said that +972 has an anti-Israel bias. Zanahary (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Zanahary - Could you please briefly and concisely explain why you've stated that 972 has an anti-Israel slant or bias that affects its reliability? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The site's short "About" section says that it specifically "spotlights the people and communities working to oppose occupation and apartheid", which are charges pertinent to Israel and shows that it is openly a source with an agenda to criticize particular aspects of Israel's policies (as opposed to thorough coverage of the Israel-Palestine region, with no stated aim to "spotlight" any one opposition cause). In 2021, the outlet published an editorial criticizing the labeling of Hamas as a terrorist group. I don't even think 972 would deny that they have a bias, considering their stated advocacy aims in their mission statement. Thus, I think that statements of fact in this article should be sourced to better outlets (and also, not to opinion pieces like this one in question). Zanahary (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      These supposed biases you've pointed out here (is "opposing occupation and apartheid" anti-Israel bias?) have no bearing whatsoever on the factual reliability of the publication. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As I've stated several times, my comment pertains to the use of a 972 opinion piece as a source for a statement of facts/the definition of a term or concept. I've explained my position on that matter clearly. Zanahary (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It sounds to me like you have conflated "Israel itself" with "a set of policies", as if anyone opposing the current policies is automatically opposing the country itself. However, perhaps they see their view as so pro-Israel that they want their country to be free of apartheid and occupation.
      Imagine someone saying that a source is "opposing racism" and that means they have "an anti-American bias", because there is so much racism in America's history and societal structure. Another person would say "Of course they oppose racism. Americans believe that All men are created equal. Opposing racism is a pro-American position." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don’t think that analogy applies here. It’s more like if an outlet that only writes about Israel and Palestine said that they’re committed to opposing a culture of martyrdom and religious repression of women’s rights. It’s not ambiguous which of the two nations they make it their mission to criticize. Zanahary (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WhatamIdoing's comment demonstrates that "opposing occupation and apartheid" can be labelled as either anti-Israel or pro-Israel depending on who is doing the labelling. It's not a useful way to talk about sources in the context of reliability. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And I think it would be clear that an opinion piece published by that outlet would not be an appropriate source to define and establish a phenomenon of bad-faith rhetorical charges of Islamophobia or racism or anything similar. Zanahary (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is nothing in the piece to indicate it is opinion. nableezy - 00:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone curious to see if this is an opinion piece or a piece of news should go ahead and read it. Zanahary (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's analysis (not opinion) by a resident editor, so higher than news. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first sentence of the article gives the meaning of the title phrase as a way of defining the article topic. The question of source bias would matter if there was any other definition of "weaponization of antisemitism" out there, in which case we would need to present the alternatives or change the title. But there isn't. Even if the consensus was that this phenomenon doesn't exist, it wouldn't make a difference as we have plenty of articles on non-existent phenomena. Here we have an article on the topic that usefully provides the definition. Some of the article consists of opinion about the phenomenon, and we can consider whether those opinions should be attributed if they are cited in the article body. But for the definition itself, which is all that the lead sentence requires, it is a perfectly fine source. Zerotalk 03:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bias of the magazine aside, while the piece reads a bit like an op-ed I don’t see why it’s unusable as a source here. Would probably shy away from its reporting on the conflict, though. The Kip 05:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • 972 is mostly opinions and carries the voices of the Israeli extreme left. It is a very small website, with little editorial oversight, and doesn't have a favourable reputation. Occasionally it hosts experts who belong to the same extreme left groups who post worthy content that is quoted by others, but other than that it is mostly garbage. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Mostly garbage"? Really?
      Also can I ask how you came upon this discussion?
      - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually it is not small and has a large editorial board of experienced journalists. It has a bad reputation among the extreme right, but so do most reliable sources. Zerotalk 08:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A range of sources are actually needed for balance, so if you're saying that it represents a portion of Israeli society that is otherwise marginalised, that's a great thing and a point in its favour. Not sure what "extreme left" means, but I assume it isn't militant communist. If we are talking Israeli politics, and we just mean to the extreme left of the extreme right, well then that just gets you back to the center, so presumably they're just ordinary chaps that oppose occupation, apartheid, genocide etc., i.e. normal positions that anyone from anywhere on the political spectrum in most countries would get behind. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia's article +972 Magazine in the section on Reception has "The same year, Israel's right-wing NGO Monitor accused +972 of being antisemitic for applying the apartheid analogy regarding Israel's treatment of Palestinians", which I think is a pretty straightforward example of what weaponizing antisemitism as described in the magazine's article is about! The author is well respected journalist and can be considered an expert in the field. I can see no problem with use for the definition though other parts of the article would need attribution. NadVolum (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For interest, that was added by an NGO Monitor employee here, and given that 21% of the edits to that page are by dishonest people that are now blocked for abuse of multiple accounts, ban evasion etc. the article may not exactly be a high quality source. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wasn't agreeing with NGO Monitor! Perhaps they have also been at Self-hating Jew which seems to be used quite often against Jews who criticize an action of the Israeli gvernment - but that isn't mentioned in the lead. NadVolum (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reliability is not the problem here. I'm 100% sure that no one's words have been misrepresented in the article. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV: whether this particular view is sufficiently widespread to be mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Alaexis¿question? 14:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not clear that the views in source even factor into the page at this point. The source is simply used as one of four for a very generic, straightforward and common sense definition. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The implicit POV is that this is a notable phenomenon. Zanahary (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Bring it to the NPOV noticeboard, this is RSN. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The source's POV is pertinent to their reliability for specific subject areas. Zanahary (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Really not how NPOV works. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Can’t argue with that! Zanahary (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      After that is done, it can join the referral to NOR noticeboard here, which also went nowhere. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're a solid outlet, and they've become surprisingly well-established when it comes to WP:UBO. I've seen them cited by French newspapers of record like Le Monde (mainstream) and Liberation (centre-left). And in The Guardian (which also publishes some of their reporters). Same with WaPo and NPR in the US. There was good praise in usually-conservative magazine Tablet here, which covers all the key points we'd care about, from the previous professional journalistic experience of their contributors, to the quality of their journalism: the magazine’s reported pieces—roughly half of its content—adhere to sound journalistic practices of news gathering and unbiased reporting (for the opinion pieces, go ahead and attribute them, as per usual). That TabletMag piece also includes an anecdote of +972 delivering an in-depth investigation that contradicted a report by a mainstream outlet, and +972's reporting then getting endorsed by the rest of Israeli media. But I'm just scratching the surface here. Become familiar with them and you'll see they provide a lot of substantive high-quality original reporting. Solidly GUNREL generally-reliable territory. DFlhb (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC) edited 11:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You've said GUNREL but presumably meant GREL. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Right - tired. DFlhb (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a very solid source in general imho, generally reliable. This particular use may be problematic and in fact the lead and article in question might be problematic, for NPOV/OR reasons. Essentially, in this instance it's an opinion piece in a reliable source being used as a primary source for the existence of an opinion, in an article about an opinion, which suggests to me the article is never going to be a good article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think if the article were rewritten to emphasize the best source of Waxman et al rather than a scan of opinion pieces for a common charge, it would be much improved. Zanahary (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What has that to do with the topic here? Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      This particular use may be problematic and in fact the lead and article in question might be problematic, for NPOV/OR reasons.

      responding to this. Zanahary (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Both at the wrong board, then. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Good source, serious reporting and referenced in many other works by Reliable Sources (as enumerated above).  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Consonni, Manuela (1 March 2023). "Memory, Memorialization, and the Shoah After 'the End of History'". In Keren Eva Fraiman, Dean Phillip Bell (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Judaism in the 21st Century. Taylor & Francis. p. 170. ISBN 9781000850321. In 2013, the Committee on Antisemitism addressing the troubling resurgence of antisemitism and Holocaust denial produced two important political achievements: the "Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion"...and the "Working Definition of Antisemitism"....The last motion raised much criticism by some scholars as too broad in its conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. The exploitation, the instrumentalization, the weaponization of antisemitism, a concomitant of its de-historicization and de-textualization, became a metonymy for speaking of the Jewish genocide and of anti-Zionism in a way that confined its history to the court's benches and research library and its memory to a reconstruction based mostly on criteria of memorial legitimacy for and against designated social groups.
    2. ^ David Landy, Ronit Lentin, Conor McCarthy, ed. (15 May 2020). Enforcing Silence: Academic Freedom, Palestine and the Criticism of Israel. Zed Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1-78699-653-4. The weaponizing of antisemitism against US critics of Israel was evidenced in 2019 when Floida's upper legislative chamber unanimously passed a bill that classifies certain criticism of Israel as antisemitic{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
    3. ^ "The Interview :We need an ethics of comparison". Medico International. 15 February 2024. "I do not doubt that antisemitism exists across German society, including among Muslims, but the politicization of the definition of antisemitism—for example, the way that the IHRA definition is used to stifle criticism of Israeli policies—makes it very difficult to reach consensus on what is and what is not antisemitic."&"The far-right instrumentalization of antisemitism and solidarity with Israel is one of the most disturbing developments of recent years."Michael Rothberg.
    4. ^ Roth-Rowland, Natasha (July 28, 2020). "False charges of antisemitism are the vanguard of cancel culture". +972 Magazine. Increasingly, however, those canards coexist with right-wing actors — above all those in power — increasingly labeling Jews as perpetual victims who must be protected, even as these same actors invoke well-worn antisemitic tropes elsewhere. By and large, these charges of antisemitism — especially as they relate to Israel — are made in order to gain political currency, even if the controversy at hand has no bearing on actual threats to Jews. Using the antisemitism label so vaguely and liberally not only stunts free speech, but also makes actual threats to Jewish people harder to identify and combat. This weaponizing of antisemitism is not only "cancelling" Palestinian rights advocates and failing to make Jews any safer; it's also using Jews to cancel others.

    Books by Norman Finklestein

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

    • Caution While originally an academic, he has not held any academic position for decades (as far as I know) and he is indeed controversial. That doesn't mean he can't be right on fact, but probably wiser to have other sources to back it up. I wouldn't rely only on him, especially not for any contentious claim. Jeppiz (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      While I would agree that relying on him alone could be problematic, and I am in disagreement with a number of his views, the claim that he has not held any academic position for decades is incorrect even according to our own article on him. He left DePaul in 2007, and also taught in Turkey in 2014-15, I assume as a visiting lecturer. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to give a more specific answer without more specific information. He has written a number of works, and the fitness for citation may depend on which and in what context. For instance, some of his books were published with academic presses,, and university-press published books are usually the gold standards of reliability (though we continue to use a neutral tone in our writing and don't necessarily adopt the tone of the author, who in this case is known for a bold tone). That said, book reviews can provide additional information and may provide reasons for additional considerations, though be careful to comb thoroughly. A sample size of just one or two reviews (either negative or positive) may not capture the broad reception of books that have stirred as much attention as some of Finklestein's.
    Being a published subject matter expert in general does lead us as Wikipedians to think other sources written by such an author are reliable, but at the same time, there is probably some wisdom in caution. The subject you are interested in citing his corpus for is designated a contentious topic, and Finkelstein has been considered a contentious man. In general, where academic scholarship is available, we'd do well to favor such over other sources, even ones written by academics (blog posts, to give a random example). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not sure why you think we should favor one side of a debate - talking about his older books here. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Biased perhaps but a perfectly respectable source, books such as Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict and Beyond Chutzpah are top drawer sources. That Israel and its supporters do not approve of him is immaterial. If some view is particularly contentious, it should be rather straightforward to back those up with secondary sources and if not then, attribute. Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Caution/questionable reliability/GUNREL when it comes to facts: he has been credibly accused of questionable/misleading citations by Morris and others, has a high degree of bias bordering on fringe views (regarding Hezbollah, Hebdo, the Holocaust, and others) and has been highly controversial as a person. Some of his older works are of decent quality and can be used very selectively, but I would avoid citing him on anything in regards to law or the military due to a repeated failure to understand the subject appropriately, seen well in his coverage of the flotilla incident. FortunateSons (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Highly reliable source, his works are published by respected academic presses, such as University of California Press, and in peer-reviewed journals. His latest work, Gaza: An Inquest in to its Martyrdom, is from University of California Press. People not liking Finkelstein's positions is not relevant to this, he is absolutely a subject matter expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his academic works are WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The above comment is astounding in its attempt to dismiss one of the most cited scholars on the topic of Gaza because is is supposedly a "highly controversial person". Top tier source, and totally fine for usage here. If some source disagrees with him and it is of equal reliability then attribute the different views. nableezy - 20:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Extreme caution - I'd avoid using him for anything beyond actual opinion; he's a wildly controversial resource, hasn't held a serious job in academia since the mid-2000s, and has genuinely fringe views on a variety of topics, including Holocaust denial and discredited anti-Semite David Irving and support for the October 7 attacks. There's very little reason to use him when far superior and less inflammatory sources, without fringe baggage, are widely available. Toa Nidhiki05 14:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a straightforward BLP violation and if you do not substantiate the wildly inappropriate claim that the son of Holocaust survivors has denied it in any way I’ll be asking for a BLP and PIA ban in short order. nableezy - 15:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His stance that Holocaust denial should be taught in schools by Holocaust deniers is absolutely, unequivocally fringe. That's what I'm referring to - well, that and supporting the "scholarship" of David Irving, which is pretty uniformly regarded to be discredited. That your first thought was to threaten a noticeboard report is really unfortunate. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh for Christ's sake. Like Chomsky, Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, whose whole life and scholarship reflects the impact of their witness, has no fear of fools, denialists. Their maniacal obsessions with apparently incongruent details in the Holocaust literature occasionally stimulates close re-examination of things by now taken for granted - not the holocaust in all of its overwhelming realities, but details in the narrative. Great scholars don't tremble and run. They chase down anomalies even among crank literature because their self-assurance about the general narrative will never be troubled by tidbits of discrepancy. That is not fringe. That is the pursuit of meticulousness, even when analysing motherlodes of bullshit (which is what Finkelstein in his analytical works on the endless misreportage of events in the I/P conflict, does professionally. Had you read that article carefully, you would have noted that its reasoning, far from being fringe, draws on the liberal tolerance of dissent, all the better to challenge it, espoused by John Stuart Mill. Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This question should not be posed. Finkelstein is an outstanding historian of the I/P conflict, and like everyone else writing academically about it, he has a decided point of view. The refusal to allow him tenure against the consensus of his colleagues, under external pressure, in no way disqualifies him as an historian or political scientist. The University of California published, after a decade of ostracism, his work, Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom, and his earlier works were unconditionally supported by the founding father of Holocaust studies, Raul Hilberg. His citation index by peers shows the depth of the impact of his work Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His view is you don't win a debate by shutting down the opposition, you win by proving it wrong. That isnt fringe, and it has nothing to do with his academically published works. nableezy - 04:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is absolutely fringe to suggest holocaust deniers should have any role in the education system whatsoever, let alone that holocaust denial should be taught in schools. And that's not the only thing he's fringe on - since being fired in the 2000s (he hasn't actually had a job in academia since - as of 2016, he had been unemployed for ten years, and he's not been employed since), his work and viewpoints have become increasingly problematic. This includes, as I listed above, the strong defense of David Irving (an unrepentant Holocaust denier whose works have been generally regarded as discredited), the advocacy for teaching holocaust denial in schools, a staunch defense of antisemitic tropes (specifically, justifying claims that the Jews "think they are better than other people", "talk about the Holocaust too much", and are "tapped into the networks of power and privilege") and more recently, the denial of any sexual violence during the October 7 attacks (which he also applauded and compared to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). In other words: whatever credibility he had during his early academic career, it's been nearly two decades since he had a job in academia, and it really shows. Toa Nidhiki05 13:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't see anything there about his academically published works, see section title. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He hasn't been in academia in nearly 20 years at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn’t true and his last book, again published by University of California Press, is from 2021. nableezy - 14:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From the sourceI linked: "He hasn’t held a steady academic job since DePaul University denied him tenure under political pressure in 2007. Now, after years of sporadic work and low pay as an adjunct, Finkelstein is suddenly spending ten hours a day fielding emails from people clamoring for his insights." That's from December 2023. So I suppose he has been in academia, insofar as being an adjunct professor qualifies. I think broadly, my point still stands though - there's a clear divide between Finklestein's work before and after his leave from academia. Toa Nidhiki05 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He was at Sakarya University Middle East Institute 2014–15. And he still is considered an expert source by the well regarded academic presses that publish his work, as recently as a book from the University of California Press in 2021. A scholar who is writing in the area of his expertise in works published by well regarded university presses is WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and no amount of whining about views you dont like changes that. nableezy - 14:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toa Nidhiki05: You should strike the part where you say his views include Holocaust denial. That's a BLP violation because it's not true. He's the son of Holocaust survivors, he doesn't deny that the Holocaust happened. Levivich (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say his views include Holocaust denial. I said he has fringe views on Holocaust denial, specifically that he supports teaching it in schools, and has publicly defended David Irving, a notorious Holocaust denier whose work has been discredited. I can clarify that specifically, but I have not accused him of being a Holocaust denier, and my wording was fairly careful, I think. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I appreciate the clarification, thanks. FWIW, the way it was phrased, I read it as you saying that "Holocaust denial" was one of the fringe views on a variety of subjects that he held, not that he held fringe views about Holocaust denial, but I understand what you mean. I'm not sure his views are actually fringe (as opposed to a significant minority viewpoint), but I agree that's not a blpvio. Levivich (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable. He's a major political scientist, his book The Holocaust Industry has 900 Google Scholar cites [28], he has written other works that are also widely cited and well-reviewed, he is a bona fide scholar in the field. Being "controversial" does not make someone unreliable, and pretty much all high-profile scholars are controversial, like Benny Morris, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Elie Wiesel, and James Flynn come to mind. That doesn't mean we say things in Wikivoice just because Finkelstein wrote them, but Finkelstein's works are definitely WP:RS. Levivich (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These 900 citations confirm that The Holocaust Industry was culturally important, but not that he is seen as serious from a scholarly point of view. I looked at one of t he first page hits at random (Byfield on conspiracy theories) and the reference to Finkelstein was about his work being used to legitimate antisemitism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    900 citations doesn't mean it's the mainstream view, but it DOES mean that it's taken seriously. If it wasn't taken seriously, it wouldn't have been cited so many times! Even if all 900 citations are debunking Finkelstein (and of course they're not), it would still show he was taken seriously, seriously enough to be thoroughly debunked. Benny Morris is a direct parallel: widely cited, very often to be criticized, but still widely cited. Levivich (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extreme caution: Extremely controversial and increasingly fringe. His early work is definitely noteworthy in relevant debates, but his views should always be attributed and his work in the last decade or two would rarely be noteworthy. For recent positions, use secondary sources to ascertain noteworthiness before using. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In what world is this not a serious academic work that is noteworthy? That, from 2021, has 59 google scholar citations. Image and Reality, from 2003, has 470 scholar citations. How does a scholar with these many scholarly works cited this often in other scholarly works add up to "secondary sources to ascertain noteworthiness before using"? He is the secondary source, and he is an expert one, and treated as an expert by both the well regarded academic presses that publish his work and by the scholars that cite it. All of the objections here are on the basis of not liking his views, and that is not, and has never been, an acceptable criteria for reliability. An academic expert writing in a book published by a well regarded university press is a reliable source by definition, and no amount of baseless personal opinion on [e]xtremely controversial and increasingly fringe trumps that. If somebody wants to challenge a scholar writing in peer reviewed journals and books published by the University of California Press they can try that, but they are arguing in direct opposition to what WP:RS says. Which is rather surprising from you tbh. nableezy - 04:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bob. Finkelstein gets its in the neck from the left and the right. The left hate his polemic against Wokism and the BDS movement, the right, or rather, people who skimread only with eyes for possible political fallout for Israel, can't come up with any serious evidence outlining some putative failure on Finkelstein's part to observe the strictest criteria for closely documenting from the historical record. It all boils down to "instrumentalisation". Finkelstein, also as the son of Holocaust survivors, one of whom got a mere pittance from Jewish institutions lucratively sueing banks, argues that Holocaust discourse is 'instrumentalized'. Enzo Traverso and others ply the worry bead that Finkelstein's results might be "instrumentalized" by antisemites. So one gets the absurd situation that if one analyses the way the Holocaust discourse is being "instrumentalised" you get attacked for providing possible grounds for antisemites to "instrumentalize" your results. So it is no longer the merits or otherwise of a 'forensic' scholarly study of a phenomenon that receive attention, but the politics of the way that critical knowledge may be manipulated and abused. Of the handful of names who count in evaluating his book on The Holocaust Industry what sticks out are the assessments by the former doyen of the discipline,Raul Hilberg (Hilberg was a Republican-voting political conservative whose methodological and empirical integrity was underlined by the fact that he defended the views of an ex-Maoist like Finkelstein, whose scholarship was judged of a high order and whose 'controversial' results he deemed 'conservative') and by Moshe Zuckermann, against their informed authority we then get a list of take-'em-or-leav'em newspaper opinionists like Jonathan Friedman, and some empty dismissive obiter dicta hearsay about Hans Mommsen. In the wiki list, the only serious scholar who challenges Finkelstein's work in terms of imputed flaws, is Peter Novick. Good, finally an evaluation that is not just shouting, but scholarly. Finkelstein duly replied, point by point. That is how serious scholarship works, beyond the breezy screedy argie-bargie of casual newspaper-type reviews which our page on the book selects, to give the impression he is 'controversial'. I don't get the impression here that many commenting editors are familiar with the field, let alone Finkelstein's work, as opposed with what can be googled up searching for polemical negativism about the man and his scholarship. He is a loner, deprived of an income for having written uncomfortable books on a topic where vast financial resources will guarantee one's career and professional security if one cautiously steps tippity-toe round the minefield of discourse on Israel , the Holocaust, where the only trump card invariably played is to accuse anyone diffident about the homely narrativization of the politics of an ethnic state and its 'normalcy' is 'antisemitism'. That is what your extreme caution really refers to in my view, extreme caution about allowing the factual record produced, for example, by Finkelstein in his recent Inquest into the Tragedy of Gaza', to get an airing. Very few reviews could elicit any notable distortion in his analysis of the facts laid out there. Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is already enough text in this section so I won't extend this debate, but just note that I strongly take exception to your second guessing my motivations to assume bad faith and that my judgement on his reliability is a demand that facts not get an airing. That's just not true and bad WP etiquette. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serious scholarship, a bit too strident for the taste of many but passes RS. Attribute opinions as always. Zerotalk 12:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliable. Not just reliable, but he is among the best sources you can get on Israel/Palestine. His scholarship is based on detailed, painstaking research that few can match. BTW, I don't think he is attacking Wokeism, but rather the (obvious) sloppy reasoning that its activists sometimes use. --NSH001 (talk)
    • Caution/Questionably reliable -- per FortunateSons and frankly per his own article's criticism section of him. At a bare minimum it would require attribution and probably should be avoided on contentious topics. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no sense. He is an acknowledged scholarly authority on, precisely, a 'contentious topic' .Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People don’t like his views so they pretend that’s a basis for challenging his reliability. It isn’t and never has been. nableezy - 17:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very unfair characterization of people objecting to his use as a reliable source. How does that productively contribute to this discussion? Toa Nidhiki05 18:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a fair characterization when there are editors voting that Finkelstein is not reliable, not based on evidence of his unreliability, but on evidence that he holds controversial views. Has he ever made a factual claim that was debunked? Has his work ever had to be retracted? Is his work widely cited by other scholars? Etc., etc. The fact that he says, e.g., Israel is a Jewish supremacist state, or that there is a Holocaust industry exploiting the Holocaust, makes him controversial but not unreliable. Levivich (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well obviously he's said things that are untrue - like, for example, that no people were raped on October 7, and that no children were taken hostage, or that David Irving - a notorious Holocaust denier and discredited academic - was an excellent historian. But these don't directly relate to his academic career, I'll admit. Here's a counter: has his work in the last two decades out of academia been deemed widely cited and reliable? Even he admitted in the interview I've posted several times that nobody cared about his 2019 book, which sold a few hundred copies. I don't have an issue with his early career, insomuch as his very public, non-academic descent into some very dark places in the last two decades. Simply put: there are dozens of credible historians who don't have the specific bias problems or extreme viewpoints Finklestein does, and would be far better served as reputable sources in his place. There may be circumstances where Finklestein's opinion is noteworthy, but that's as an opinion, not an objective source of fact. I think that's a fairly nuanced take. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve posted the citations to his 2021 work published by University of California Press already. nableezy - 18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'll say it again: if Finkelstein is unreliable because of the controversial views he holds, then Benny Morris must also be unreliable because of the controversial views he holds (like, "they should have finished the ethnic cleansing"). But of course that's not how WP:RS works. Levivich (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a discussion about Norman Finkelstein, not other people. I wouldn't be inclined to think anyone who supports ethnic cleansing should be regarded as a reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (replying to both here) In both cases, you're judging a source's reliability based on the opinions the author holds. The idea that we shouldn't use a source because we disagree with the author's opinion is totally wrong, that's nothing but censorship. Finkelstein's comments about Oct. 7 have absolutely zero relevance to whether his works prior to then, e.g. 2000's The Holocaust Industry, are reliable or not.
    "deemed widely cited and reliable" is such a nonsense phrase, Toa. You know damn well that nobody "deems" works to be "widely cited and reliable" ... well, except Wikipedia.
    But yes, his works have been widely cited. I already linked to Holocaust Industry's 950 citations. His 2018 book Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom has 59 Google scholar cites, not exactly overwhelming, but certainly enough to call it "widely cited" (in this field), and it's been favorably reviewed (see cites in the Wikipedia article).
    More impressive is his 2005 book Beyond Chutzpah, which has 358 Google Scholar cites.
    So, yeah, still a scholar, still widely cited, and his controversial opinions are not a reason to call him unreliable in the Wikipedia sense. Levivich (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Relative to academic historians in the field, 59 citations doesn't actually seem like a lot. Your other example is from his academic time, which I'm not contesting. Aren't there other historians who have actually been in academia in the last two decades, without a track record of genuinely inflammatory remarks (again, the David Irving thing - I've not seen a response to this, at all, but defending his status as a historian is a very, very big red flag. He's widely and uniformly regarded not just as a Holocaust denier, but a fraud). I would say the same thing about a historian from the Israeli side with a similar record, too - there is no shortage of academic work on this matter. Toa Nidhiki05 18:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which books not reliable, according to you? Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would consider his post-academic body of work one that should be used with extreme caution. I believe I've said this multiple times now. Toa Nidhiki05 18:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So not this one? 2012: Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel is Coming to an End, OR Books, New York (2012) ISBN 978-1-935928-77-5 which seems right on the money, at least going by the title.
    Just to be clear, you assert that all of his published material since 2007? is unreliable? Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His 2018 Gaza book getting 59 cites is not a lot but it's not nothing, either. For comparison, Ilan Pappe's 2017 book about Gaza has 91 cites. Levivich (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Serious caution and consider WP:DUE weight As best as I’m aware, Finkelstein’s work, while high-profile, is highly controversial and does not always represent academic consensus. As such, it probably shouldn’t be used without attribution, or even with it without consulting opposing views and ensuring due weight.
    If NPOV policy and DUE mean that WP is nothing but an establishment mouthpiece, so be it. There are limits to our discretion in generating a big picture from raw data because we are a tertiary or sometimes even quaternary source. I believe there’s an essay about it somewhere (actually multiple iirc).
    Further information: Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair
    and its reference list
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow Wikipedia sourcing guidelines - exercise caution. It's hard to respond to such a general question, but it's clear that he disagrees sharply with many no less eminent scholars. Therefore we should not assume that whatever he wrote represents the scholarly consensus and should seek other voices. Alaexis¿question? 21:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Using Decider / Decider.com for interviews and reviews

    I know Decider is owned by the New York Post, which is unreliable. The website also seems tabloid-y. However, I'm planning to use these two sources for my article: an interview and a review. Both are authored by established journalists (the about pages for the authors on Decider sucks, but with a quick Google search you can see their portfolio). I just want to make sure before using these sources that they are okay. Spinixster (chat!) 01:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've started a request for comment at #RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (and Decider) to find an answer to this question. — Newslinger talk 21:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is donsmaps.com a reliable source for Las Caldas cave?

    Source[29]. I'm also concerned that the 3rd source, [30] goes to 3 papers none of them with that name. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreliable. The homepage of Don's Maps states: "I live in New South Wales, Australia, and I am a retired high school mathematics/science teacher. The Donsmaps site is totally independent of any other influence. I work on it for my own pleasure, and finance it myself." It's a neat site, but it is self-published by a non-expert and not usable for factual claims in the Las Caldas cave article. — Newslinger talk 09:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Athletic

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

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

    RFC: The Athletic

    What is the reliability of The Athletic?

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

    Survey

    According to the criteria you linked, an uninterrupted RFC is sufficient. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like an interpretation of the criteria in a way that it was never meant to serve, and a misuse of the purpose of the RSP list. Where has the reliability of the source been legitimately challenged or questioned before? If everyone already agrees it's reliable and there has never been a reason to challenge it, we don't need an RSP entry to affirm that. Being omitted from the list doesn't make it any less reliable. We don't just add entries to the RSP list willy-nilly like this; it's already long enough as it is, and this sets a bad precedent. Please also see the explanations at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 318#ESPN and WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 319#ESPN ( www.espn.com ), which refers to a similar type of source (widely-used sports journalism outlet that virtually everyone already agrees is reliable) for why this isn't RSP-worthy. Left guide (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Where do the RfC options come from? Who decided these were the official four? They're bad

    Every time there's an RfC on here, the person opening it presents four options, which are invariably these:

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

    This seems extremely sub-optimal to me. First of all, they're all stupid: the first one is "always good" and the others are "always bad". We can quibble over definitions, but the fact of the matter is that one of these is literally shaded green and the rest are shaded yellow or red or black. There are countless talk page discussions and noticeboard threads about people removing sources for the reason of them being one of the bad colors, and some even do it with scripts, all the better for not having to bother with evaluating them individually.

    Most importantly, there's no option that preserves the original status of the source: we are forced to either declare it good or declare it bad. There's no option given for "editors are expected to use their heads and evaluate whether source is reliable when they are citing it", which is bizarre, because this is the default for every source in existence. We don't operate on a whitelist basis! We expect editors who write content to be capable of looking into a publisher and seeing whether it is credible. This is how the sourcing guidelines work: unless somebody opens a RfC at the reliable sources noticeboard, apparently, then it's assigned a color and you aren't allowed to do this.

    Some[who?] might argue that this is the same as "Option 2", but this is clearly not true; in innumerable discussions where people suggest "Option 2"ing a website, they are suggesting to "downgrade" it from Option 1. Everyone has seen discussions on talk pages where somebody says that a source is yellow and we should try to use a green one instead.

    Why are these the four options? Can't we just have an Option 5: follow Wikipedia sourcing guidelines? jp×g🗯️ 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the main problem is with this interpretation: "the others are "always bad"". To me, it is clear that Option 2 is not "always bad", and it is more informative than "follow Wikipedia sourcing guidelines", since it tells you that there has been a discussion about this particular source, so you are not completely left to your own devices when it comes to figuring out reliability (see WP:MREL).
    With that said, I have also been noticing that at least some editors claim sources that are not always good are always bad by default. But I would argue that this is mostly their fault, not the system's. So overall, I would prioritize helping editors who are willing to make an effort to understand why it's marked marginally reliable, rather than prioritizing preventing invalid arguments from those who are not willing. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, most of the time, people don't get into disputes over anodyne things that could be sourced to any WP:MREL source - they get into disputes over stuff that's controversial, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, often WP:BLP-sensitive, and so on. Those tend to be things that require higher-quality sourcing, which means that if someone wants to use a MREL source for them they often need to at least give an explanation. MREL sources are used all over Wikipedia without objections; but the specific things that come up in disputes tend to overlap with the situations where they are less than ideal. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly, but it could also be because those particular WP:MREL sources are always about a controversial topic. The concrete example I've experienced is medical journals that focus on controversial medical areas, such as functional foods. In these cases, I think pretty much all uses of the sources could attract controversy, but that still doesn't mean they are always unreliable, or even that their usage requires special handling, apart from the general applicable guidelines (such as WP:MEDRS for my example). Bendegúz Ács (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The four options seem fine to me. If editors are taking an overly reductive approach to interpreting the categories, that’s a behaviour we should discourage. A generally reliable/unreliable source could be unreliable/reliable in a specific context. Another thing we sometimes see is editors trying to bless an opinion as a fact because it is stated in a green source, notably when trying to apply WP:LABELs to subjects. “My green source called him a poopyhead so we need to call him a poopyhead in the first sentence!” Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're always supposed to follow sourcing guidelines, so option 5 amounts to "do nothing." And people do sometimes take that position, but it's mostly only reasonable to take when a source hasn't been discussed much (often RFCs here are objected to as premature.) I'd say that if we were going to have a fifth option, it'd probably just be "premature" for that reason, ie. there's no evidence there's actual disputes over the source that an RFC is needed to resolve. Once significant numbers of disputes start coming up, though, I don't think "just follow the guidelines" is useful, because that by definition means that editors can't agree on what the guidelines mean in that case. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove Option 1. We should either yellow-list ("caution"), red-list ("don't use in an article"), or black-list ("don't even link to it anywhere") a source, or else do nothing. "Too bad to use" is OK to say, but "generally reliable" is something we should not be declaring about any source. All sources make mistakes, and if we want to rank sources we should do so categorically (like WP:TIERS) not individually. Levivich (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Generally reliable" should account for the fact that all sources make occasional mistakes. We're not saying "totally reliable". Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even with these four options, there can be made fair exceptions to them, though that would require consensus on the talk page. A source that we list as always good means we should start with that presumption, but if a given article from it is very inconsistent with other sources, then we can say that particular instance is not good. We also can say a source is good in one area but bad in another, or establish periods where it may be good, or establish certain authors may only be good from a source, etc. It's really not four options, but four options with many a la carte variations. — Masem (t) 22:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it generally reliable, as in "usually"? --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 2 generally means that the sources have good reliability and are usable. It does not mean they are unreliable at all or that they should not be used. Even "generally reliable" sources have additional considerations depending on the context of their usage. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a problem. "Generally" does not mean "always", and "additional considerations apply" obviously doesn't mean "always bad". BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. It seems OP misunderstood what those options actually stand for. Only option 4 is an "always bad" option, and it doesn't apply to all that many sources. Cortador (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is completely untrue that an "Option 2"ed source is equivalent in standing to a source which has no RfC consensus; what I am saying is that we should not have a process which regardless of its outcome is guaranteed to change our official standing on a source.
    I am quite aware of "what the options actually stand for". What I'm saying (and indeed, what I wrote two paragraphs to explain in detail in the original post) is that a source being "yellow" -- in actual practice -- means in almost every instance that people will argue for it to be removed when it is used. Typically, in the English language, when something is "downgraded" this means that it has been lowered, or made worse. There are widely-used and officially-recommended scripts that highlight sources according to their color in the RSP table, in which yellow is explicitly denoted as inferior to green (to say nothing of the universally used green-yellow-red color scale).
    There should not be a process where, no matter what people say or what their opinions are or what the policy is, anybody who opens a proceeding permanently changes the status of a source across the project; there should be a status quo option in the RfC. jp×g🗯️ 22:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While status quo on a source is not always going to be option 2, from the POV of an individual editor it will always fit into one of the options, and so I don't think a "status quo" option makes sense. The whole point of having an RFC is that people disagree about the reliability of the source.
    For some sources, status quo is fine: if the New York Times weren't on WP:RSP it would still obviously be a green-level source. But the fact that a source is being brought up for an RFC proves that there is some disagreement about it, so in practice a status quo option in RFCs here would be the same as a no consensus close. There's no other process where we explicitly let people advocate for no consensus and IMO for good reason. Loki (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems untrue? AllMusic, for example, is listed at yellow, and I would wager it's one of the most cited of any source on Wikipedia. Mach61 00:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say it varies widely depending on the source and the article it's used for. A yellow-at-RSP will generally be removed on that grounds from a contentious topic article, whereas something like AllMusic might still be widely used with attribution in articles about songs. Salon.com is another example of a widely-used yellow-at-RSP, and I think it's because it's used in pop culture and entertainment articles, but it'll usually get removed from contentious topic articles. (Disclosure: I remove yellow-at-RSP sources from contentious topic articles.) Levivich (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original post makes some very good points. When I was a new editor, I wanted such a list. Then as a more experienced editor, I immediately had serious concerns about the categorical judgment about the quality of a publication. Even the best publications like the NYT have items posted of different reliability based on the expertise of the writer(s) and their political or ideological biases. An article originally published in the NYT, could find its way to the AP and to Fox News. That article republished by Fox News does not make it unreliable. I doubt most new (or younger) editors understand this.
    Now I have mixed feelings, because when I want to add material to an article, the list helps me figure out which sources are more likely to pass muster. Going through the reliable sources archives to see what people had said about the source in the past is a lot of work and often not that helpful.
    Where I strongly agree with JPxG is about these points:
    (1) I am quite troubled by scripts that go around deleting sources from articles.
    (2) I am even more troubled by blacklists where it is impossible to use a source at all, ever. I do not believe WP:RS has ever justified that, until it showed up in 2020.
    (3) I agree with JPxG's description of how if you use a source that does not have the "green light", editors are likely to do exactly what JPxG said: They will try to use it as "proof" that your source is not great, that the content is WP:UNDUE, you should find something better, and any number of ways to try to undermine the use of that source in that article--simply because it didn't have the "green light". Even if they are wrong and *should* instead follow the RS guidelines, it can create an undue burden on the editor trying to say, "No. It's not that simple"--especially if multiple editors misunderstand the limits of the perennial source assessments.
    Last, one big problem with the list is that it reinforces the U.S. State Department propaganda that is distributed and echoed throughout U.S. media and media of NATO and other allies. The U.S. and Western media has long been vulnerable to State Department propaganda--as described by Noam Chomsky's propaganda model--yet, the U.S. media seems to only notice the propaganda problem in other countries' reporting, as if it couldn't possibly happen here in "the land of the free" with the 1st Amendment protections. One need only look at coverage of the lead up to 2003 war in Iraq as evidence of media's echoing of Bush's propaganda in favor of the war[35][36] and the countless images of mushroom clouds suggesting that Iraq was on the verge of launching ICBMs at the U.S.
    If the U.S. State Department identifies a source as a "foreign agent" or propaganda, the U.S. media--including "green-lighted" NYT and Guardian--parrots that position. Then Wikipedia editors can point to the NYT's claim that the foreign publication is unreliable propaganda, and Wikipedia will blacklist it. These are exactly the kind of sources that would have been critical of the Iraq war and are likely to be censored here by the blacklists. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to the OP's question "Why are these the four options?": They were accepted as header advice in RfC: Header text in 2019. I objected to the closer (Eggishorn) but gave up. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The situationality of reliability is a great point, and it's about more than just individual reporters. The fact that a masters' thesis isn't at all usable for media and drama interpretation, but a rushed, insignificant capsule review in Rolling Stone is, is sheer lunacy. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS)

    Are Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) publications (e.g., Mormon Studies Review, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies) reliable sources for statements in Wikivoice? Are their publications in WP:PARITY with publications by academic publishers (like Routledge, T&F, etc.)?

    FARMS publications are currently used in, e.g. Mormonism, Book of Mormon, origin of the Book of Mormon, among others, either for statements in Wikivoice or in parity with other sources (in the sense of, "some say X, others say Y," with a FARMS publication being the Y).

    I could not find FARMS discussed directly in the archives, but there were prior related discussions that mentioned its publications last month and in 2018. I have previously asked about religious-affiliated publishers in 2022, and the consensus in that discussion (my reading) is that a publisher is not unreliable merely because it has a religious affiliation. This question, though, is asking about a specific publisher and not about religious publishers or apologetics publishers in general.

    My opinion: FARMS is Mormon apologetics, and to quote the Wikipedia article about them, "While allowing some degree of academic freedom to its scholars, FARMS was committed to the conclusion that LDS scriptures are authentic, historical texts written by prophets of God." For this reason, I think its publications should not be used for statements in Wikivoice, and should not be in WP:PARITY with traditional mainstream academic publications (like those published by Routledge, T&F, etc.).

    I've advertised this on the talk pages of the three articles linked above, at WT:LDS, and at an ongoing related discussion at WP:FTN. Thanks in advance for your thoughts, Levivich (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Routledge publishes anybody and everybody — I might as well be inclined to say yes (i.e. it is good to have university presses as yardstick). In any case, Mormon Studies Review is currently published by the University of Illinois Press — with no connection to FARMS — and is far from a Mormon-apolegetic journal; at the same time, it undeniably used to be one even a decade ago but had many gems of articles. In contrast, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies is probably guttable; there was a huge fracas when UoIP semi-acquired it and from the looks of it, had (has?) a terrible reputation. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The University of Illinois Press maintains a connection with the Maxwell Institute which FARMS was absorbed into in 2013. I don't believe that the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies was "semi-acquired" by UoIP, it appears to be "published on behalf of" the Maxwell Institute which is a commercial relationship (that would mean that the Maxwell Institute is paying the UoIP to publish it and UoIP is adding no academic or professional endorsement to the content). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am pretty certain that Mormon Studies Review — as of today — has no link with FARMS/Maxwell Institute; can you provide evidence to the contrary? As to JBMS, I am unsure; all I recall is that many were up in arms against whatever agreement UoIP was entering into (with FARMS/Maxwell) for this journal. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Funding for publishing JBMS appears to come from the Laura F. Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies which is a constituent body of the Maxwell Institute [37]. If UoIP has a link then whatever UoIP publishes does as well. I'm not saying its a major one, but its not no link or no connection. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that for much of the period in question FARMS is just part of the Maxwell Institute (which doesn't appear to be any more reliable it must be said). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general I would say unreliable, but as TrangaBellam has pointed out there are exceptions, for example I would say that Mormon Studies Review post 2020 or so is a pretty mainstream reliable source but by then any connection to FARMS/Maxwell is tangential. The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies is not a reliable source either when self published or when published on Maxwell's behalf by another press. I share TangaBellam's desire to get in a cheap shot at Routledge but in general I would say no, they are not on parity with publications by academic publishers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally unreliable and undue. Recent editions of MSR are excluded. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unreliable: FARMS, like FAIR and BYU's Maxwell Institute, is an LDS apologetics mill, and is unreliable for neutral, scholarly articles, and has a strong conflict of interest (WP:COI). It's staffed and funded by people (if not the church itself) extremely defensive of an institution (the LDS Church) with a long history of suppressing factual publications about its history (e.g. September Six). It's not interested in true scholarship so much as trying to make a controversial organization look good. I wish this were not the case but here we are. Pastelitodepapa (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unreliable: I think it is ok to use for a specific viewpoint within the LDS church, but absolutely not for archeological information or in Wikivoice. I wanted to point out that WP:LDS/RS includes a list of sources related to the Latter Day Saint movement. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, it should be added to this list. Epachamo (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for mentioning LDS/RS. I see Journal of the Book of Mormon Studies is listed as green, as a UIP publication, no mention of FARMS. That should probably be updated with the result of this discussion as well. Levivich (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unreliable and not independent of subject They seem to be closely affiliated with the LDS Church. While I haven’t closely examined their articles, it seems to be an organ of theologically grounded conformism rather than serious independent scholarship. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    zvukibukvy.ru

    Can anyone figure out who publishes this site. Kelly The Angel (talk · contribs) added it and I replaced it, but I am not fully happy with the replacement as well. (The author only gives her first name so it seems blogish.) zvukibukvy.ru has no ads, but the contact page allows sending messages to the "editors". So how do they pay these editors? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    [38], [39]
    Hello @Richard-of-Earth. How do you feel about these links being used as sources? Kelly The Angel (Talk to me) 07:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Howdy @Kelly The Angel:. The first, reverso.net, is AI-generated that obscures the true source. The second, academic.ru, seems usable as it cites it sources. I found this and have added it to the article. That should cover it. I still am interested in who is behind zvukibukvy.ru. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unclear, there is zero information about the owners on the website. There are many published dictionaries of Russian slang, and academic.ru helpfully references them, so I'd prefer to use that source. Alaexis¿question? 22:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    March 14

    Can anyone verify if this [40] source is reliable? And may I use it for citing? A user has recently removed the citations for using this source by saying that "the author is not even a historian" [41][42] although according to the back of the cover of the book, at "About the author" section, it states that he's a historian. Jonharojjashi (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't find evidence that Venkatesh Rangan is or isn't a historian. That said, the book is published via Notion Press, an Indian self-publishing company, which calls the credibility of the book into question. Cortador (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the book is published by Subbu Publications [43], and can anyone (who has more expertise in verifying Indian books) give his conclusions here? That is whether I can use it for citing in Wikipedia pages? Jonharojjashi (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I'd trust any "myth-busting book" unless it's widely cited by reputable historians. Seems like a WP:REDFLAG if the publisher needs to say it.... Woodroar (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A publisher publishing [44] isn’t a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still perplexed because here in the first paragraph it mentions : [45]

    Venkatesh is a senior finance professional working in Mumbai with a deep and passionate interest in Indian history. Over the years, he has researched the original 18th-century records, such as bakhars, daftars, kaifiyats, hakikats, thailis, tarikhs, residency correspondences and foreign diplomatic dispatches. With an academic and professional experience spanning multiple continents, he believes in understanding Indian historical events in a global context. With a reading list drawn from regional and world non-fiction literature, he is enthusiastic about exploring hidden connections between the past and the present.

    And here : [46]

    About the Author
    Venkatesh Rangan is an author and historian who has written acclaimed non-fiction works such as "The First Republic" and "Age of Pi and Prose" previously. He has also participated in several national and international academic seminars, conferences and literary festivals on Indian history.

    Also here : [47]

    About the author (2022)
    Venkatesh is a historical non-fiction writer who has written books and research papers and presented his ideas at several government and private academic institutions. His first book, The First Republic, was well received by a wide spectrum of readers and won acclaim from several celebrated public intellectuals. For the current work, Venkatesh has researched several rare historical Sanskrit and Prakrit manuscripts and inscriptions. He has also studied Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic and Persian texts for the same.

    Does that still makes his historical books, historical researches and credibility unreliable? Jonharojjashi (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those author bios were provided by the author or publisher. Self-publishers like Notion Press often use a bio provided by the author or write something favorable and flattering. In either case, we can't use it. To prove the author's credentials, we need to see what reliable, secondary/independent sources say about Venkatesh Rangan. Unfortunately, I looked and couldn't find much at all—which suggests that he isn't a source we should cite on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why I wasn't pinged (or even asked to elaborate before posting this here), considering I am the said user who removed it. Venkatesh is a senior finance professional, not even a historian. What he is doing is essentially a hobby, he has no credentials. This is like me writing a book and others citing it. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still perplexed because in that paragraph itself it mentions : [48]

    Over the years, he has researched the original 18th-century records, such as bakhars, daftars, kaifiyats, hakikats, thailis, tarikhs, residency correspondences and foreign diplomatic dispatches. With an academic and professional experience spanning multiple continents, he believes in understanding Indian historical events in a global context. With a reading list drawn from regional and world non-fiction literature, he is enthusiastic about exploring hidden connections between the past and the present.

    And here : [49]

    About the Author
    Venkatesh Rangan is an author and historian who has written acclaimed non-fiction works such as "The First Republic" and "Age of Pi and Prose" previously. He has also participated in several national and international academic seminars, conferences and literary festivals on Indian history.

    Also here : [50]

    Venkatesh is a historical non-fiction writer who has written books and research papers and presented his ideas at several government and private academic institutions. His first book, The First Republic, was well received by a wide spectrum of readers and won acclaim from several celebrated public intellectuals. For the current work, Venkatesh has researched several rare historical Sanskrit and Prakrit manuscripts and inscriptions. He has also studied Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic and Persian texts for the same.

    Does that still makes his historical books, historical researches and credibility unreliable? Jonharojjashi (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jonharojjashi, please stop posting the same or similar messages. This is your third time posting what is effectively the same comment. Woodroar (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was unaware of a rule as such, and I don't remember posting the same or similar reply 3 times. Jonharojjashi (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Venkatesh could read all the books in the world, still does not change that he is not WP:RS per the comments that have been presented to you. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jonharojjashi, Venkatesh Rangan praising his own work is not a reliable source. And that is what you have been repeatedly quoting. You can't use his writings as sources on Wikipedia. I hope that's finally clear now. Bishonen | tålk 21:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    Joseph Edelman

    I'm currently trying to improve the page for Joseph Edelman and another editor reverted my edit saying it is not eligible for use on Wikipedia. This is a university website placing information on charity about all contributors, not just one person. I'm looking to verify if this source can be used or shall I search for more eligible source here? The text I want to add: 

    In 2015, Edelman donated $470,000 to UC San Diego for the Advancing College Mental Health (ACMH) pilot program, aimed at supporting undergraduates pursuing mental health professions.

    . Llama Tierna (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What I am noting is that the recipient of a large donation is blatantly not a third-party source, and thus does not show inclusion is due. (The editor who inserted that has also been inserting other claims of donation to the page based on a WP:PRIMARY source, the Edelman Foundation's tax filings.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I'm not even sure the page belongs in Wikipedia. I have a suspicion that its purpose is to promote supposed good works by this person, and make sure the world knows about them. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AzseicsoK, I improved the page per suggestion of the Wikipedia founder @Jimmy Wales following our conversation on his talk page. He suggested to expand the page, so let's invite him here as well. If the page is not notable and should be deleted, anyone is welcome to nominate it for deletion and reach the consensus among the editors. By the way, we are discussing a particular source on this Noticeboard, so why don't you take the issue of deletion somewhere else? I'm looking for help related to a particular source here. Llama Tierna (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nat Gertler has stated a clear objection; do you understand the objection. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Allkpop

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

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

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

    You should provide more context but here's all the previous discussions that are about allkpop: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]
    It's also listed under WP:WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources#UR as being unreliable although that's just a Wikiproject. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Traumnovelle: Some articles like this are poor for using as a source. Although this site publishes rumours and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts, however, some information on this site may or may not be true and Allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of the claims. sjh (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the site itself doesn't consider itself reliable I fail to see how it can be considered reliable for Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Makes no warranty as to validity” is just a standard legalese disclaimer; websites of many RS have similar disclaimers. Judge reliability based on substance. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey

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

    @Davest3r08: That's fine if other reliable sources like this can be used in a BLP too. sjh (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I Agree with @Davest3r08Davest3r08 Slacker13 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

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

    The Shortcut: reliable source?

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

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

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

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

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

    It seems quite doubtful this is an RS we could use on Sweet Baby Inc. The about page makes it clear their focus is on 'pass on that time-and-money-saving information to people in their inboxes, like any good journalist would want to do'. Their are some mention of reviews, but it's not the main focus and even for reviews they say 'Brevity – no one wants to read a 10,000-word review. Often, people just want to ask: “Is this good? Should I buy something else?”' While they do mention 'independent journalism', whatever the credentials of their writers and editorial team, there's barely any mention of any focus of the site on the sort of more basic journalism needed to cover anything remotely contentious so I think there's strong reasons to doubt they do a good job at it. The site may or may not be okay for opinions on reviewed products, and for info on stocks levels etc. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd add while perhaps they're not a pure WP:SPS like most Substacks are since they have an editorial team, I'm not totally convinced it's the sort of editorial oversight we'd expect, especially when it comes to anything involving living persons. I mean their 'senior editor' seems to be the writer of an awful lot of articles covering contentious stuff [57] making it very unclear who's the one who actually reviews these sort of things. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to highlight, that the opinions of the site and their editorial actions is not part of my question about RS, i am aware, that The Shortcut opinions are probably not RS, but i want to stress, that this source could be used as a secondary source (WP:PSTS) for specific and vital parts of the controversy to achieve NPOV. WP:BLPSPS is probably the case for the article opinion, but not in the specific small content, that would be used as a source, because the article is the source of material about a living person, that was original written and published by the person themself (WP:BLPSELFPUB). The Shortcut would only be the secondary source of this self-published, primary source to avoid WP:TWITTER-EL
    --2003:DF:A715:5000:21F2:F985:6D74:3A9E (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To make it a bit easier to understand. I could misunderstand something. But to quote WP:PSTS:
    WP:SECONDARY
    Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.
    The Reliability is necessary to insert an analytic, evaluative, interpretive or synthetic claim of the secondary source.
    WP:PRIMARY
    A primary source may be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
    I just want to use the primary source in the secondary source without inserting strictly any form of analytic, evaluative, interpretive or synthetic claim by the secondary source to remain in the primary policy. 2003:DF:A715:5000:21F2:F985:6D74:3A9E (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Shortcut currently appear to have two articles directly about Sweet Baby Inc. They are; Sweet Baby Inc. detected: What actually happened and why should you care?, and Sweet Baby Inc.'s Wikipedia page is missing key facts – here's the unbiased context. There is also one other article that mentions Sweet Baby Inc in passing. All three were written by the same author, Adam Vjestica, formerly a writer turned hardware editor for TechRadar, and current senior editor at The Shortcut.
    I would be sceptical of ruling this source reliable, solely for the purpose of laundering screenshots that purport to be tweets made by staff employed by Sweet Baby Inc. Even if it were reliable, there would be a question of whether this actually constitutes due or undue weight that would need to be assessed at the article's talk page. They are asserting certain things as factual that no reliable source that I've read about the recent events have asserted, while also downplaying the intense level of harassment and doxing attempts made against the company and its staff. However some of it does match with what some unreliable culture war focused sources, like Bounding into Comics, FandomWire, and That Park Place have said. The first article by The Shortcut on the Sweet Baby Inc situation does come across as more than a bit like victim blaming, and their second one about our article on the company takes umbrage with our content, despite it being verifiable to actually reliable sources.
    In terms of use by others, I've not been able to turn up anything substantial from a quick search, aside from one brief mention in an article by The Verge about Twitter restricting the reach of links to Substack. Nor have I been able to find any RS writing about the site in general. It's possible I'm using the wrong search terms though, given the publication's choice in name it's difficult to filter them from background noise about shortcuts in games, or use of shortcuts on computers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That second article's claims that some of our article is incorrect—despite it being very clearly sourced to reliable sources—is certainly not helping its case. I would also hope that a news article claiming to have "the unbiased context" would do better than to present an out-of-context quote from the company's CEO about convincing employers to listen to one's ideas (as if that somehow proves the company is "forcing diversity"), or the completely unrelated quote from an "ex-employee" (former intern) whose comments have no relevance to the company whatsoever. The article also focuses on the accusations by "gamers" but does little to give any context from the other side (besides "journalists staunchly defend their version of events" and "this is something that Sweet Baby Inc. has denied"). Reliable sources are allowed to be biased but to claim you're not—while, in my opinion, proving otherwise—is not a good start. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, I'm actually kinda sceptical of the research The Shortcut claims to have done. They said According to The Shortcut’s research, there was also no encouragement given to “avoid the games” that Sweet Baby Inc. had been involved in., which is odd considering the still live Steam curator group has sixteen reviews in it, all of which are "Not Recommended" because the involvement of Sweet Baby Inc in each game's development process. Now it's true that the curator's about description does say that it's a tracker for games involved with the company, but the researchers at The Shortcut clearly couldn't have looked too deep into the group as they clearly missed the reviews. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to highlight, that the opinions of the site and their editorial actions is not part of my question about RS, i am aware, that The Shortcut opinions are probably not RS.
    I once again state, that i honestly don't care about the opinions of editors of the Sweet baby Inc article on wikipedia or the opinion of The Shortcut to somehow push a claim, that one of these opinions about this controversy would be RS etc. This is not a topic to make critics about the articles of The Shortcut, explicit articles released after the opening of this topic.
    In the same sense it is highly not NPOV to call tweets, made by a staff employed by Sweet Baby Inc only "purport" for this topic, while the actual RS used on the Sweet Baby Inc. here on Wikipedia article used the same account tweets and even some of the same tweets in their articles and even Wikipedia is using this right now to state facts in this article.
    To claim at the same time, that these tweets would be WP:DUE is inconsistent as well, because it would make a large area of this topic in the Sweet baby Inc page about these tweets again on Wikipedia similar undue weight and it would have to be removed, thereby making the whole controversy missing a huge part of its origin.
    it should be highlighted, that the review system of Steam doesn't give any other option of wording for a review, except recommendations and that a recommendation is not a call for avoiding a game, it is the typical word used on Steam for any review. Maybe a lack of understanding about Steam gives you there a unjustified sceptical view.
    --2003:DF:A715:5000:21F2:F985:6D74:3A9E (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a topic to make critics about the articles of The Shortcut, explicit articles released after the opening of this topic. In this discussion, per your request, we are assessing the reliability of The Shortcut. This is absolutely the place for us to be critical about their content, whether or not it is factually correct, and whether or not they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That is what this noticeboard does.
    Now if you're asserting that The Shortcut is not a reliable source, then we don't really have anything more to discuss here. If it's not reliable, there's no way we would use it in any article, let alone one that's currently at the focal point of a controversy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And my request was 3 times already to differ between primary facts in a single article and the opinions of the site and their editorial actions as this is not part of my question about RS, i am aware, that The Shortcut opinions are probably not RS, but i want to stress, that this source could be used for a primary source(WP:PSTS) for specific and vital parts of the controversy to achieve NPOV in a vocal point of a controversy.
    I even explained this heavily with quotes by Wikipedia:
    But to quote WP:PSTS:
    WP:SECONDARY
    Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.
    The Reliability is necessary to insert an analytic, evaluative, interpretive or synthetic claim of the secondary source.
    WP:PRIMARY
    A primary source may be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
    I just want to use the primary source in the secondary source without inserting strictly any form of analytic, evaluative, interpretive or synthetic claim by the secondary source to remain in the primary policy.
    It is oblivious, that someone, who is trying to judge the same Tweets once as a fact and than as unreliable and as "purport" and than even tries to argue about WP:DUE ignores simply huge parts of this argument, that
    a) these tweets are partly backed by already RS sources to be self-published primary source. A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. WP:TWITTER-EL
    b) ELNO#10 makes it necessary to give a different reliable source for the primary source, that the tweet in itself.
    c) it is possible to use The Shortcut as a source for a primary source by simply following WP:Secondary Policy, to not make in the article an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim with The Shortcut, because it is not for itself a reliable secondary source. It still can be a reliable source of a primary source.
    --2003:DF:A715:5000:21F2:F985:6D74:3A9E (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    to achieve NPOV NPOV does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is no need to compromise on sourcing standards to try to reach a balanced article. More generally, it seems it is indeed your hope to use the Shortcut to 'launder' the primary sources / tweets themselves (as Sideswipe9th mentions above), so you can then insert them into the article. This as a source for a primary source concept you have come up with is novel, but it is not supported by Wikipedia's policies in letter or in spirit. You're not going to find some loophole that lets you get tweets into the article no matter how much WP:WIKILAWYERING takes place, particularly not when you are conceding that The Shortcut is not a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thx for linking these 2 links, as i am new to this format of writing, i will lay down my case and excuse my Lawyering, if it took place. But i will hint, that certain elements of this controversy is clearly a matter of WP:UNDUE or WP:FALSEBALANCE and despreatly need to be fixed.
    For example: The curator group received increased attention in February when a Sweet Baby employee asked others to report it for failing Steam's code of conduct. in the article in question was for no reason altered from the actual RS quoted for it.
    "They asked their followers to report it and its creator due to it failing Steam’s code of conduct," 93.237.171.157 (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you are new here, I'll mention that WP:REGISTER has some advantages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    that the review system of Steam doesn't give any other option of wording for a review, except recommendations and that a recommendation is not a call for avoiding a game Not only is a "not recommended" tag a clear recommendation to avoid the game, back at the end of February before the social media stuff happened the logo for the Sweet Baby Inc detected curator was the Sweet Baby Inc company logo with the red no symbol superimposed onto it. The curator list itself contains only games that Sweet Baby Inc have been involved with in some way, with verification taken from the company's website, newsletter, game credits, or in the case of one game a blog post by the game's primary developers saying they had brought in Sweet Baby Inc for narrative consultation. The curator list was very clearly intended to tell its followers to avoid games that this company had some sort of involvement in. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a typical example for the reason, why Editors, who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. One of these actions would be to demand, that you are in a similar discussion on the talk page on this article, that uses WP:PROVEIT for your argument, but ignore this policy in this case.
    Once again you ignore the simple facts, that Steam calls any negative review a recommendation. The negative recommendation to a game in public is not a public statement to avoid it, even if this is claimed by others/you.
    In the recommendation description is simply a link to the prove of involvement of the company in a game. This is not a statement to avoid the game.
    The curator list was very clearly intend to list the games Sweet Baby Inc was involved in without even giving any reasoning for the dislike. The about page clearly state the actual purpose of the list to be a tracker for games involved with Sweet Baby Inc. 93.237.171.157 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and RS actual stated, that the curator list doesn't give a reasoning for the negative recommendation beyond a proof of their involvment. --93.237.171.157 (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    93.237, this would be so much easier if you just said exactly which source(s) you want to cite and what statement(s) you want to cite it/them for. Woodroar (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ASPERSIONS - If you're going to accuse someone of blockable offenses, provide diffs. and reasoning.
    Saying a game being tagged as "not recommended" by a steam curator means the curator isn't telling you to not buy the game is a terrible hill to pick to die on and hurts any arguments for inclusion on the source.
    It is, in my opinion, an argument made in bad faith by the author that hurts the credibility of the article. Given people followed the group to know which games not to buy, I would go as far as to say the entire statement is irrelevant.
    That being said, there may very well be statements inside that it can be sourced for which we needed the door to open on in a secondary source, which this is.
    Maybe something in there is worth attributing to him, or is worth sourcing to the article as something that indisputably happened. I don't know what, but that's why we have the discussion process. I won't make a sweeping statement like "the entire thing has no value,"
    It would be nice if you proposed some sentences or additions from the source, because right now, I don't think it's appropriate for every statement contained within. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who actually reads Steam reviews, I find the claim particularly funny. Perhaps it's just because of the games I'm checking out, but a fairly common review is one which starts off with something like "it's a pity Steam only allows me to recommend or not recommend since I don't feel either of those fit". To my mind, most people who actual use Steam reviews understand that not recommend is explicitly telling readers IMO this game is probably not worth playing and recommend is explicitly telling readers IMO this game might be worth playing. Of course since it's a binary you're forced to pick a side even when you're neutral or it's complicated. But the forum seems to have chosen the "don't play" side and with all the other stuff they say this isn't surprising since it's precisely how they feel. I'm guessing they didn't even start their reviews with the classic "I didn't actually want to pick a side" line I mentioned. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think even SBI's biggest detractors would claim the group isn't about telling people what games to avoid, that's what "not recommended" means. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > ...that the review system of Steam doesn't give any other option of wording for a review, except recommendations and that a recommendation is not a call for avoiding a game
    Reviews on the Steam Store page only allow positive or negative reviews. Curators on the other hand (such as Sweet Baby Inc Detected) have the option to give an 'Informational' review instead. At the current time they have 0 positive, 0 informational, and 16 negative reviews. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed this yesterday and don't pay much attention to curator reviews myself. It's even funnier than that an argument is being made that the negative review is not intended to recommend against the games. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really feel like wading through the knee-deep foul-smelling liquid that seems to surround this topic, but it seems really alarming and silly to suggest that we consider a source unreliable because it says that a Wikipedia article is wrong. It should not be our general practice to bury our heads in the sand like this. jp×g🗯️ 19:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this source is reliable when it comes to factual basis of the material. Other sources previously used in the article don't really affect reliability of this one for one simple reason - these sources, for the most part, don't even mention information used here, and when they do mention it, some part of information gets omitted. I don't think that information provided here contradicts any major points in previously used sources, please do correct me if I'm wrong - with citations. Cheers --Moon darker (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My main issue is "to what extent is it reliable." We would probably have to use it with a caveat that any statement which would need to be attributed, so anything which doesn't reference a tweet or otherwise summarize primary source material should likely not be included. Which, I'm fine with. DarmaniLink (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If a variety of reliable sources report on story elements A, B, C, D, E, and F, while one or two sources report on those plus G, there's a good chance that something is wrong with G. It may be incorrect, or it can't be corroborated, or it's simply irrelevant. Look, most journalists don't work in a vacuum. If they aren't reading the other articles, at least they know about them, and they're checking in with their own sources. The push for clicks and avoid getting scooped is real. That virtually all reliable sources covering a subject are ignoring some details is a good sign that we should, too. Woodroar (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost all articles that omitted the G predated ones that included the G, thus the whole point about vacuum is mostly irrelevant. Moreover,
    • G can't be incorrect because it's a simple citation of a primary source
    • It doesn't need to be corroborated because see p. 1
    • It is relevant because it started the whole controversy in the first place
    Moon darker (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, it's a citation to a primary source along with interpretation of that primary source. That is why it can be thought of as having a truth value and needing corroboration. Imagine I say "Magna Carta was first signed in 1215, and set the stage for video games some seven and a half centuries later." If someone says to me, "Wow, that's a really dumb thesis," a rejoinder of "but Magna Carta WAS signed in 1215!" is not exactly convincing. This also goes to your final point--it started the whole controversy in the first place according to whom? We have to approach Wikipedia articles as though behind a veil of ignorance (with apologies to John Rawls). If you come in knowing what an article should look like, you're bringing baggage. That doesn't mean you can't contribute, of course, it just means it is suboptimal. Then again, reasonable minds can certainly differ on any of these points. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets imagine both of us know absolutely nothing about the situation (did I understand your take on veil of ignorance correctly?).
    We have 3 inseparable messages that set things in motion (all sources agree here, right?). Try to measure an emotional impact, on average, on a human being:
    • The @Steam curator harassment group Sweet Baby Inc detected is lead by this person, @kabrutusrambo. Here's them trying to be slick so they don't get reported. Even with the discriminatory language filed off, the group itself still fails the code of conduct. (here we have dry, although loud, statements of facts, not much in terms of emotional load)
    • anyway report the f**k out of this group (sudden change, but still, it's not a personal attack or anything like that, just a call for action on an inanimate object)
    • and report the creator since he loves his account so much (now, this is both a personal attack and a threat to an account of a person who has invested in it for 13 years, as we know from a screenshot attached to a tweet. It might resonate with any normal human being, but it will certainly resonate with any gamer)
    This primary source does not need an interpretation, it's a dry fact in the timeline of events: employee X stated Y1, Y2, Y3 which resulted in Z. The fact that reliable sources omit Y3 doesn't make it any less valuable than Y1 and Y2, that's just 3 parts of one statement. Do you really deem it suboptimal? There must be something really wrong with me, because I don't understand your point. It doesn't seem like not having any background knowledge on the topic makes things look any better in these tweets either. What is the justification for not including it besides "the sources we've already used don't include it for some reason", what IS the reason? If this tweet is so unimportant, maybe the gaming community wouldn't use it at all? How come nobody cares about the first two tweets, besides the statement about Steam CoC? Have a nice one. --Moon darker (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "suboptimal" part is when an editor (and we all have been guilty of it from time to time) sets out to conform an article to what she "knows" happened. And that can be either a conscious or a subconscious tendency. From my point of view, nothing in the real world is as simple as "a + b resulted in c." There is an infinite chain of causation which led to a and b, and a context around c. Forgive my examples, but let me try one again: imagine you see a video of me yelling obscenities at and taking wild haymaker swings at a person. It would tend to make me look pretty bad. Now imagine another video of the same event, which shows that just prior, the target of my assaults spit on and said horrible things to my wife. The second video might not make you think I was justified in my reaction, but I think most people would agree that it would affect their view of the behavior. I guess in the end I am simply saying that a lot of perspectives can be brought to bear on an event. I know you have yours, and for all I know it is the correct one. But it simply isn't one that is currently shared by the reliable sources (though that may certainly change). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the RS use din the article to quote her demand to close the group mentioned the same demand to the creator of the group, but this part of the sentence (and his creator) was not mentioned in wikipedia and it still remains not mentioned on the page.
    (on the sidenote, it would be increadible easy to mention, that the account of the employee was banned to violating X-policies similar to the article already mentioned the changes to the discord/group functions for similar not clear defined violations)
    For some reason some editors dont want it to be in the article, against the factual statements of both in RS. --2003:DF:A715:5000:6D2D:5361:A474:1C3E (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source doesn't seem to have meaningful WP:USEBYOTHERS or a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so I don't see anything that would make them a high-quality RS - their own ABOUT page can't do it; being a RS is about their reputation, not what they say about themselves. Of course, reliability is contextual, so they might be usable for uncontroversial things. But they're definitely not usable on Sweet Baby Inc., a contentious topic; and the particular claims you want to use them for (implying specific individuals are guilty of harassment) is WP:BLP-sensitive besides, so it would require high-quality sourcing. The rationale you give for want to use them is backwards - WP:FALSEBALANCE doesn't allow us to put our "thumb" on the scale and use weaker sources in order to reach what some editors personally feel is a better or more accurate balance; it might feel balanced to you, but in practice approaching balance that way it means that you'd be introducing your own perspective to the article. We determine balance and WP:DUE weight by the weight in the best available sources, weighted according to their reliability and significance, not based on editors' personal views of the subject; if the best available sources don't cover something, the answer is not to dig for lower-quality ones. --Aquillion (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Jakarta Post (pre-2019)

    Is the Jakarta Post (pre-2019) generally reliable for Indonesia-related articles?

    https://thejakartapost.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com sjh (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there an actual editorial dispute on Wikipedia over its reliability? - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. sjh (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the WP-article, my default assumption is "Probably as good as any (Indonesian) newspaper, context matters." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    La Teja (Costa Rican newspaper)

    I was planning to write an article where one of the main sources would be from lateja.cr. I see that it is used sometimes as a resource for Costa Rican subjects. Can anyone more experienced than me in what constitutes as an RS weigh in? Lettlerhello • contribs 15:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    La Teja is a national newspaper and seems to be part of other useful sources [58]. What are you planning on using this source for? Ramos1990 (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was planning to write about a sort of micronation that was formed in the 90s. The source is this: [59] @Ramos1990 Lettlerhello • contribs 03:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see an issue with La Teja. You can also supplement with academic sources if you want. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks! Lettlerhello • contribs 14:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This source appears to be a self published site - about page here, and as an editor is insisting in removal of any reliable sources tags (i.e. [60], I've brought the source here to review whether or not it is a reliable source.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that it's not reliable and I don't see this as a close call. It's self-published and the owner makes no claim to be an expert (WP:SPS). Some articles (like the linked one) have good references, but many don't, and some point back at Wikipedia, creating a potential WP:CIRC problem. If an article on an unreliable self-published site uses good sources, then cite those sources. Mackensen (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, clearly doesn't meet WP:RS. 17:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
    I think your assessment is on-point, its not a reliable source. Note sister sites tanks-encyclopedia.com, truck-encyclopedia.com, and plane-encyclopedia.com. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiProject specific reliable sources

    Dear RSN experts:

    In part 382 of the current wikisaga that started earlier this week, I have been considering this page of reliable sources curated by a WikiProject. I am a little worried that this is forming something like WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but I'm also sensitive to the fact that this more general page may be overloaded and so separating discussions to WikiProjects may be appropriate. Here, it seems a lot of the consensus formed among what I judge to be to small a cadre of editors, but maybe that can be fixed with RfCs and the like. Or, maybe this could be incorporated wholesale (if you all agree) into WP:RSPS. Or maybe we send it to deletion? I don't know, I'm just hoping to get some guidance for those who may know about this sort of thing better than I, because WikiProject-specific guidelines like this are a new one for me. Whaddya think?

    jps (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't see a problem with the page you are referring to [61]. It of interest to that particular WikiProject. Edits by its members still need to conform to Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines. I think there are bigger fish to fry, such as the state of a number of LDS articles. Personally, I don't see the need to worry about this. Also, I think WikiProject guidelines are not so uncommon. Check out WikiProject Books guidance for writing non-fiction book articles here. There is general guidance for WikiProject Book members here. There is guidance for members at WikiProject Physics here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    During recent extensive discussions with a few LDS project members, I think the page you are referring to was mentioned once. I don't see this being used to preempt Wikipedia site-wide policies and guidelines. No one is pointing to this page as some kind of authority. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One more example: WikiProject Medicine also has guidance for members/editors: here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I was pointed to it a few times by more than one person as though it represented authoritative consensus. My concern is not with "guidance". My concern is strictly about there being an entirely separate page of sources with claims that the reliability had been determined, but it seems the discussion did not happen here. jps (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example is WP:KO/RS, mentioned in a section above. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A WikiProject source list like that only represents "consensus" among a niche group of editors who are interested and involved enough in a certain topic to join said WikiProject. In this particular case, it is quite possible (even likely) that most of the editors who built that list and participated in the pertinent WikiProject discussions are personally members of that religious movement, which would create a systemic bias. So take it with a grain of salt, and feel free to raise any sources here that have an assessment you question or disagree with, to gain broader community input. Left guide (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we reassess all those sources? Like, I'm not sure about any of them. The Association for Mormon Letters being listed as "reliable" is pretty concerning given the current arbcom case and discussions about that specific organization being embroiled in a COI scandal at AN/I. jps (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Summoned from jps's post on the wikiproject. Seven of the sources listed there have links to archived discussions at this noticeboard, so I doubt those represent a local consensus, and rehashing here might not be the best use of time. I see that the obviously problematic sources (apologetic, self-published, and primary sources with questionable accuracy) are marked red. Sources that may not be completely independent are marked yellow with "additional considerations" like "should only be used to demonstrate an official viewpoint of the LDS Church". Those notes seem reasonable to me. The green ones mostly look reasonable too. Deseret News is apparently the most controversial and has been discussed here 4 times. The notes in the description say, "The Deseret News is considered generally reliable, however, it is owned by a subsidiary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and there is no consensus on whether the Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church, so it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The publication's statements on topics regarding the LDS Church should be attributed.". Based on the "description" notes alone, I might switch Journal of Book of Mormon Studies to yellow ("additional considerations") due to the additional considerations listed there. It might be a good idea to discuss Association for Mormon Letters because of the Arbcom case, but it would be unfortunate if that discussion became a drama outlet for pent up frustration with wiki-politics or whatever. ~Awilley (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In theory, providing a list of subject-specific RSes is one of the most helpful things a WikiProject can do. In theory. Levivich (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general I find WikiProject subject-specific source lists to be helpful, they come with some downsides but those downsides are I think largely reflective of the downsides of WikiProjects in general (NPOV, OWN, fan club, etc) rather than limited to these lists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. Perhaps we should link back from WP:RSPS then so that people know about these other lists? WP:KO/RS is way more extensive than even the one I brought. jps (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a partial list at WP:RSP § Topic-specific pages, which can certainly be expanded, and the category Category:WikiProject lists of reliable sources. These topic-specific lists are useful for indexing source discussions for sources that do not meet WP:RSPCRITERIA and source discussions that take place outside of this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 20:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks an awful lot like many of the sources there either have never been discussed, or that no such discussions are linked…
    RSP itself, after all, is just a summary of hundreds to thousands of previous discussions and RfCs, mostly here at RSN.
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews from unreliable sources

    In the process of cleaning up references to trash-tier sources that have been found generally unreliable in a broad general RFC, I've been removing reviews of material that are published in such GUNREL sources - on the basis that unreliable sources are prima facie WP:UNDUE, and generally don't meet the bar of being required in order to present an WP:NPOV of the topic.

    Some have objected to this on my talk page - though they (repeatedly) didn't want to bring the sourcing discussion to WP:RSN for discussion. So I am.

    The question for a given case is: Would it be a violation of NPOV not to include particular opinion statements sourced from a non-RS? Would the particular statements meet the high bar for author-sourced opinions per WP:RSOPINION to be WP:DUE? I didn't find many that IMO would reach that bar, but of course that's a matter for per-article discussion.

    In almost all cases there are plenty of reviews in solid RSes, that clearly meet RSOPINION because they are in an RS - and where there aren't, it's arguable we shouldn't need to go to non-RSes for coverage. Non-RS reviews don't count for notability, for example.

    Some posited that being a solid RS wouldn't be required for a review source. I must admit I don't buy this one.

    A previous discussion of reviews in deprecated sources wasn't keen to make a carveout for them. The main issue was that the source was not reliable, so was unlikely to be an RSOPINION - that RSOPINION requires an RS. There's more chance for a merely GUNREL source meeting the RSOPINION bar - but it's prima facie unreliable so not DUE.

    Something presented as RSOPINION in a GUNREL source requires that the author's opinion itself is notable. This gets fraught when a reviewer is slightly notable and has written in RSes previously or after, but the example at hand is in a GUNREL source.

    The general opinion of RSN on notable persons' opinions that they've chosen to present in an unreliable source and not a reliable one has not been positive, any more than them presenting a blog post would automatically count as an RS or an expert SPS for RSOPINION. Individual cases may pass. (There's a Max Hastings cite from the deprecated Daily Mail on St Paul's Survives that's so far been kept on the basis of tremendous expertise, for example.)

    Review statements on BLPs should be considered as a separate matter. If it's not from a solid RS, it cannot be used to make any statement about a living person. That sounds extremely broad because WP:BLP is broad. This is set out very clearly in RSOPINION as well. We will generally have quite sufficient reviews from solid RSes, thus providing an RSOPINION that complies with WP:BLP.

    Broadly speaking: do we have the policy justification for a carve-out of RS sourcing rules for review opinions from GUNREL sources?

    It would indeed be a carveout in cases where there had been a reliability RFC, meaning the carveout would require another RFC, I'd think - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally unreliable isn't a policy designation, it's a guideline. The question is if the source is reliable for the specific use. This really should be answered on a case by case basis and blanket/blind removals should be discouraged. Springee (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This presumes blanket/blind removals, which you haven't shown is happening here. What particular edits would you defend? - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked a generalized question. I gave a generalized reply. Springee (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some reviews are there for a reason, no matter which source it came from and you removing them makes it less encyclopedic and literally takes away to what critics say about any films that has those sources. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't in any way address the policy issues or sourcing policies detailed above. Do you have a response to the points raised? The case where this would require an RFC-level carveout from an existing RFC needs addressing, for example - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally unreliable sources are presumed to be unreliable and should normally not be used unless there is specific consensus that an article (or group of articles) published by these sources is reliable or otherwise usable. WP:RSOPINION lowers the reliability of opinion pieces published in generally reliable sources; it does not elevate the reliability of opinion pieces published in generally unreliable sources and cannot be used as a method to enable generally unreliable sources to circumvent sourcing requirements. Opinion pieces from sources identified as unreliable are subject to WP:ABOUTSELF just like any other articles published in sources identified as unreliable, and the use of WP:ABOUTSELF is further restricted by WP:DUE.
    Per WP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", and per WP:BURDEN, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." — Newslinger talk 20:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the earlier discussion that David Gerard pointed to, which (using Gerard-like words) wasn't keen to give David Gerard a licence to destroy what many other editors had put in, my comment was: Closers of the Daily Mail RfC stated that there was no intention to exclude opinions. See also the November 2019 thread Opinions in the Daily Mail and the February 2020 thread Daily Mail TV reviews. And David Gerard's mention of "policy" is misleading -- WP:NPOV would only be relevant if the source was in fact not reliable in the situation we're talking about, WP:RSP is essay class, RfC on WP:RSN is about misinterpreting a guideline, the actual real "policy" is WP:NOTCENSORED, if we followed it we would be requiring David Gerard to self-revert all the unjustified changes and apologize to the editors whose work he reverted without the courtesy to notify them. Here's a recent example: in the BLP of Philip Klein, AuthorAuthor had in 2020 added a cite to Washington Free Beacon, David Gerard in 2024 reverted -- and by destroying the statement made it seem that an accusation against Philip Klein had not been refuted. (An IP fixed it around the time that Philip Klein noticed the situation.) (Last I checked there was no RfC that conclusively supported the claim that Free Beacon was GU anyway.) Yet another objection: the topic heading here "Reviews from unreliable sources" is a WP:TALKHEADPOV violation, it's still allowed to think that a review in X is a reliable source for what a reviewer on X thinks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTCENSORED is not a valid justification for violating the WP:V policy or a valid method for overriding WP:RS. Listings on WP:RSP, including WP:FREEBEACON, are sourced from discussions on this noticeboard and represent community consensus (a policy). If you take issue with the entry for the Washington Free Beacon (RSP entry), you are welcome to start a new discussion or request for comment about the reliability of that source on this noticeboard, or start a discussion at WT:RSP to suggest a revision to that entry. — Newslinger talk 21:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And David Gerard is welcome to start a new RFC on the reliability of the New York Post. But alas, here we are with this discursive and disruptive nonsense. Οἶδα (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's clearly ongoing disagreement about the reliability of the New York Post's entertainment coverage, so I've gone ahead and started the RfC at #RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six). — Newslinger talk 21:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Updated RfC link — Newslinger talk 09:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Newslinger brings up "community" but 5-10 discussers are not the same as about 47 million registered users. Newslinger brings up "WP:V" but the point about these opinions is that anyone who can click can see that they exist. Newslinger says that WP:NOTCENSORED does not override WP:RS, but WP:POLCON says "If a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence." A little higher up on WP:POLICIES everybody except Newslinger can I hope see that essay-class pages are even lower, so opening discussion on something as worthless as WP:RSP would a fortiori be worthless itself. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the verifiability policy states, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed." You are always welcome to start a new discussion or request for comment on this board if you disagree with the past consensus on this noticeboard that the Washington Free Beacon is a questionable source. Obviously, even the most popular discussions on Wikipedia noticeboards do not have millions of participants because the number of active editors who participate in project space discussion is much lower; the fact that there are less than a million editors in these discussions does not invalidate their comments on this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 20:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It invalidates your claim that this happy few represents the "community", as I said. As for your again bringing up WP:V: I've already explained "the point about these opinions is that anyone who can click can see that they exist". For yet another e.g. here's the latest movie review on New York Post: ‘Irish Wish’ review: Lindsay Lohan’s latest is a St. Patrick’s Day massacre . Now, I claim that page really is verifiably on the site nypost.com and the page verifiably contain a bunch of words in English. Which of these claims do you refuse to accept? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the first sentence of WP:V states, "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." That the source is published is not sufficient to establish verifiability. I see that you've already participated in the RfC below, which will clarify whether the New York Post is reliable for entertainment reviews like the one you linked. — Newslinger talk 23:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't need your bad RfC to see it's reliable in this context. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Overreach to remove all of these citations. As per WP:NYPOST NYP is problematic on NY politics and NYPD in particular; these are movie opinions. I don't edit movie pages and I do not read New York Post <shudder>, but Kyle Smith (critic) is a perfectly reputable critic and these mass deletion campaigns are hurting Wikipedia. Wikipedia should remain WP:NOTCENSORED. GUNREL has carve-outs precisely for situations such as this. When did Wikipedia go from being an attempt at building an encyclopedia to an effort at dismantling an encyclopedia?  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The New York Post has been found to be generally unreliable for factual reporting vis-à-vis stories like the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. But now David Gerard is waging an inane crusade to remove basic review criticism. Because apparently an established film critic's opinions on The Lorax soundtrack is not trustworthy and must be removed. Because apparently we are concerned about the factual basis of these subjective evaluations. Or that they are somehow given undue weight. And every single instance should be sought out and summarily removed. And we must believe this is an important task that is worth any of our time and improves the encylopedia. David "raised a lot points" here I guess to confuse people into concern. The RFC was clear enough. We do not need a carveout. Οἶδα (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "New York Post" should only be used for film reviews and nothing more. I think David Gerard's actions are unfounded due to the fact that he has removed reviews on the film articles that came from New York Post, which makes thing less encyclopedic and David Gerard is removing based on his one-sided belief on the reliability of the sourcing of the New York Post, nothing more. That source may be questionable, but it doesn't mean removing reviews from it on film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with David Tornheim et al. Context matters on usage of sources and RFC results on sources are guidelines, not policy, set by votes of very few editors usually. Mass deletions have to have stronger justification. Especially if they still considered reliable by other sources under WP:USEBYOTHERS. Wikieditor assessments are limited since most editors are not experts. RFC results are not policy or law on wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • While of course context matters, the entire point of the RFCs is to set a default - a baseline which people ought to take into consideration when determining whether to use a particular source or not. If people think that there are case-by-case arguments for using opinions from RSes, they need to actually present those arguments on a case by case basis; if no argument has been presented then it's reasonable for anyone to remove it (as a way of challenging it) and it shouldn't be restored until a rationale has been given and a consensus reached on it. I certainly don't think that WP:RSOPINION alone is a blanket explanation for using an unreliable source (otherwise, we could use anything as a source with in-line citations, which is certainly not current policy or practice.) The identity and expertise of the author are what matters there, especially in situations where it's an opinion published in an unreliable source - the question for RSOPINION is always "is this the opinion of someone whose opinion matters?" If the author is just a talking head or the like, and the source where they're publishing it is unreliable, obviously we can't use it just based on that. Basically, some people above are characterizing this as a blanket removal (which it is not) - but really, we need to look at it from the other side; some editors are mistakenly asserting that any opinion published anywhere, in any format, no matter where it was published and no matter whose opinion it is, is automatically usable as a source. That isn't the case; we can decide on a case-by-case basis, but if someone added an opinion by a non-expert published in a non-RS into an article with no explanation, it's fair to challenge that and remove it until / unless a rationale has been given and a consensus for inclusion has been demonstrated. --Aquillion (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I generally agree with this. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think "entertainment" is too broad a category. There's a massive difference between "review of a film/TV show" and "tabloid coverage of celebrities", both of which could fall under "entertainment". I wouldn't be particularly bothered if the NYPost's reviews were found to be usable, but I don't think this RfC should be taken as an endorsement of using tabloid gossip sources about celebrities. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Survey (Entertainment coverage of the New York Post)

    • Option 3 or Option 4. There is no need to make a carveout for the New York Post. The Post's entertainment coverage is part of it being a gossip tabloid at absolute best. This is not a paper of quality or renown. Given that so much of its entertainment coverage is about living persons, and the previous RFC noted the Post's fondness for fabrication, allowing any such carveout is likely to be a WP:BLP danger. There's a consistent flow of fresh BLP-violating trash from the Post, especially from Page Six but also from the rest of the paper/site. I would suggest the safest thing is to deprecate its entertainment coverage entirely. At the least, we must note that the New York Post must not be used for any statement concerning living persons - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know enough to speak on the Post, but for Decider, I'd say option 2. Some of their articles are clickbaity gossip and tend to over-dramatize stories (for instance, this), but those tend to fall under WP:TABLOID. On the other hand, they have some longer-form articles/interviews (example 1, example 2) and reviews (example) that seem perfectly fine and where I have no reason to suspect their reliability. Given that the least reliable articles seem to come from sources that shouldn't be used in any case, I see no reason to extend the "generally unreliable" moniker to all Decider articles. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. I've found the NY Post entertainment coverage to be mostly gossipy and i'd avoid it... In fact really all i would use the Post for is sports coverage, which is mostly ok as they employ some good sports writers.. everything else there I would avoid. Spanneraol (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - what does "entertainment" mean in this RFC? Celebrity gossip or film reviews?  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah... +1. For example this article from NYPost is a pretty standard concert review (not unlike other such reviews they post), and I'd have no issues with someone using it on Pixies (band). The celeb gossip crap posted on NYPost, Decider, and Pagesix.com is a different beast however and something I'd probably argue is generally unreliable. Endwise (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I assumed we were talking about entertainment news reporting rather than reviews. Spanneraol (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This RfC examines all entertainment coverage (including the entire scope of Decider) from these publications, which encompasses both film reviews and celebrity news. If you consider one of these publications to be more reliable for some topics than others, please say so. Please be detailed and specific in your responses, so the RfC closer can carefully evaluate the responses and give a comprehensive closing statement. — Newslinger talk 03:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2, weakly – The Post is tabloid-y but entertainment as a whole has elements of tabloid-y content. For instance, if I was working on an article about internet slang such as Looksmaxxing, I wouldn't have much of an issue using The Post for some cultural reception info. Also concurring with Endwise, I wouldn't have an issue with it for music or a film review. Celeb gossip shouldn't really be used from any tabloid anyway? I don't know much to speak on the other ones. TLAtlak 03:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 on Decider and Page Six. I can't find many (or any significant) examples of RS referencing its reporting based on a cursory Google News search for terms like "Decider reported" or "according to Decider", etc. That said, I also can't find any instances of its reporting being specifically identified as inaccurate or unreliable. Given that, I think Option 3 is the best bet. Chetsford (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC); edited[reply]

    03:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

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

    Discussion (Entertainment coverage of the New York Post)

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

    Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. — Newslinger talk 22:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio. — Newslinger talk 22:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NYP I don't read and so have no opinion. I sometimes read Decider's "stream it or skip it" and haven't gotten any feeling their reviews are noticeably inferior to most other entertainment venues... What would be the justification for changing Decider's entertainment coverage to "generally unreliable" or "deprecated"? I am asking because this discussion needs to clearly summarize any reasons put forward to blacklist this site (and "please read several miles of previous discussion, it's all up there" doesn't cut it). CapnZapp (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware of any proposal to blacklist Decider. Since Decider is operated by the New York Post, which was found to be generally unreliable for factual reporting in the 2020 RfC, one of the goals of the current RfC is to determine whether Decider should be considered likewise or otherwise. — Newslinger talk 23:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Checking the page, it seems like the only (if not primary writer) right now is Nicholas Hautman, and per his about page, He joined the New York Post in 2021 after nearly six years at Us Weekly, where he started his career. He graduated from Hofstra University on Long Island in 2016 with a bachelor's degree in journalism. Spinixster (chat!) 01:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is a reasonable suggestion, since Page Six is already listed as a sub-publication of the New York Post at WP:PAGESIX. I've added Page Six to the RfC. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 03:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Do not pre-empt any conclusions Please don't act as if your preference has already achieved consensus, User:David Gerard, as you did here. Your edit summary NYP is generally unreliable, prima facie WP:UNDUE is inaccurate. The current (pre-discussion) consensus is that NYP is generally unreliable "for factual reporting especially with regard to politics", not that it is generally unreliable in every aspect. CapnZapp (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "generally" means "generally", not "not generally" - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No it does not. Generally means generally only when there are no qualifiers. Otherwise those be pointless to add. Do not ignore the qualifiers. This entire RfC relies on the fact that you are wrong. CapnZapp (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with some users, David Gerard. You have been removing reviews on film article that come from the New York Post without any consideration of the consequences behind that and you did so by your own biased views of the reliability of the sourcing of New York Post. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His editing history is especially egregious since he participated in this very discussion and still went ahead and made his edits, as if this wasn't still an open RfC that could possibly rule against his wishes. If and when it does, I hope and trust he will self-revert all his premature edits. CapnZapp (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand David Gerard's point of view based on the phrasing of the 2020 RfC's closing summary. For example, the sentence "Gambling is generally a poor financial decision, especially when the gambler is in debt" states two things: that gambling is generally a poor financial decision, and that gambling is generally an even worse financial decision for gamblers who are in debt. Likewise, "Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics" means that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, and that it is generally unreliable to an even greater extent for political reporting. This RfC seeks to clarify whether the New York Post's entertainment coverage should be considered differently. — Newslinger talk 21:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "generally unreliable for factual reporting" means just that. It does not mean "generally unreliable" full stop. Otherwise those three words "for factual reporting" would not have been added. There is no uncertainty about what the earlier RfC meant. It specifically spelled out "factual reporting" meaning that the "generally unreliable" rating only applies to that. Other stuff - like entertainment - was specifically excluded from the decision. David Gerard didn't read it that way but that doesn't mean his reading is valid. Just to be crystal clear: This RfC does not seek to "clarify" this as if the earlier RfC was unclear. It can, however, seek clarification since the earlier RfC did not apply to entertainment articles. I trust and hope you and I agree on this, Newslinger. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Factual reporting does not exclude entertainment reporting. For example, Decider exclusively focuses on entertainment reporting, yet still publishes plenty of non-review articles that only make factual claims. The New York Post's and Decider's reviews and recommendations also contain factual claims, as most reviews do. The 2020 RfC's closing summary said that the New York Post is "Generally unreliable for factual reporting", and it did not say that the New York Post was any more reliable for entertainment reporting than it was for most topics, so the 2020 RfC was clear that the New York Post was considered generally unreliable for entertainment reporting as well. The current RfC offers editors an opportunity to re-evaluate the reliability of the New York Post's entertainment coverage. — Newslinger talk 13:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You yourself started this RfC quoting the current status quo: "Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics". This can only be read as the RfC taking a position on "factual reporting". Obviously facts can and will appear in reviews, but you didn't start this RfC to discuss the fringe cases when an editor cites a NYP review to verify a factual claim, you presumably started this RfC to see whether the community wants to discourage editors from using NYP reviews in entertainment articles. The context right here is David Gerard trying to justify his jumping the gun by saying that the earlier RfC does mean this already, but we should not express any understanding for that POV - we are specifically talking about it here and now, so taking action before allowing this discussion to conclude is obviously premature. CapnZapp (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you mean the complete opposite, that NYP was previously considered generally unreliable overall but you want to see whether the community can exclude entertainment from that assessment, his actions remain just as premature - trying to get his edits in before this RfC changes the status quo is frowned upon, to say the least. (If this is your stance, our RS/P summary should have read "generally unreliable" full stop with no qualifiers) CapnZapp (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This User:David Gerard is just wasting a lot of people's time here on Wikipedia with his BS editing based on his own personal views; he tags pages for speedy deletion when there is zero reason to do so, removes content out of the blue, engages in edit wars; will someone block him or should we keep wasting time to keep this bully at bay? Itemirus (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM)

    The U.S. Agency for Global Media is a U.S. government agency that runs the U.S. external service (Voice of America) and the surrogate services (RFE/RL, Radio y Television Marti, Alhurra), etc. Prior to 2017, these broadcasters were collectively controlled by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, a semi-independent board. After 2017, the board was abolished and they all now answer to a unitary appointee of the President of the United States (serving as his/her pleasure) and are 100-percent funded by the U.S. Government.
    As a reminder:

    • An external service reports on the sponsor nation from the sponsor nation's perspective (e.g. the BBC World Service uses British presenters to broadcast information about the UK to other nations).
    • A surrogate service reports on a target nation using presenters from the target nation and is designed to act as a "surrogate" for the perceived absence of certain perspective in the target nation's own media (e.g. Russia's RT uses British and American presenters to broadcast information to the UK and USA largely about the UK and USA).

    Questions:

    1. Is the U.S. external service (Voice of America) RS pre-2017?
    2. Is the U.S. external service (Voice of America) RS post-2017?
    3. Are the U.S. surrogate services RS pre-2017?
    4. Are the U.S. surrogate services RS post-2017?

    Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • For what it's worth I think all four are non-RS but I'm interested in feedback from the community.
      Issues with the functional independence of Alhurra has been lightly touched on in our article on the subject, and we could probably have an entire article just about it. And most of these controversies are pre-2017. Until 1971, RFE/RL was secretly controlled by the CIA [62] - this only stopped after an expose revealed that fact. The ITU and others (e.g. [63], [64]) have said the broadcasts of Radio y Television Marti are designed more to foment subversion in Cuba than disseminate news, and even the U.S.' own audit agency (the GAO) has said it engages in "propaganda". There's a parade of individual examples of serious issues associated with its reporting that are too numerous to mention (e.g. [65]). The U.S. State Department famously ordered VOA to spike an interview with Mullah Omar [66], etc. etc. Chetsford (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Chetsford: Since Radio Free Asia (RSP entry) and Voice of America (RSP entry) have both had their reliability examined in previous requests for comment in March 2021 and in September 2021, respectively, would you like to make this discussion an RfC? — Newslinger talk 03:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm concerned that may be premature at this point and am mostly trying to get an informal sense as to whether it might be appropriate to treat all of the USAGM brands (either pre or post-2017) as a single evaluative unit for a future RfC. But maybe I'm unnecessarily elongating the process. What do you think? Chetsford (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think your approach is reasonable and I like how your framing of the questions forces editors to consider aspects of these broadcasters that may be overlooked with a broader "Is X reliable?" question. Personally, I believe these four questions would make an excellent RfC statement (though I'd rephrase them to replace "RS" with something clearer), with the remainder of the text in your 03:11, 17 March 2024 edit positioned underneath. Editors who want to offer separate evaluations for each broadcaster can do so in their responses and the RfC closer should be able to summarize the consensus for each broadcaster separately.
      If the only thing holding you back from launching the RfC is uncertainty on the phrasing, I'd wait for a couple more comments to confirm that the phrasing is appropriate, then I'd move straight to the RfC. The 2021 Voice of America RfC had high participation, so a new RfC would be needed to overturn its results. — Newslinger talk 05:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback, Newslinger - that makes total sense. My reticence in treating each of these one-by-one is that they're essentially just different logos on a single organization (not unlike Taco Bell and KFC being two different menus of Yum Brands versus two different companies) with a single controlling mind and editorial staff who seamlessly float between the various brands; ergo I find it hard to believe we might say "X is reliable, while Y is unreliable". In any case, I'll plan to follow your advice and reformat this as an RfC after a few more comments. Chetsford (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm slightly confused. Have something changed since 2021 that merits a new evaluation? Or are you merely interested in learning whether the community is prepared to extend the same reasoning that applied to Radio Free Asia/Voice of America in 2021 to more brands under the Agency for Global Media umbrella? But which would those be, in that case? (= please list everything you folded up under "etc") CapnZapp (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that nothing suggests BBC's World Service, which you list above, is considered anything but reliable, despite its UK perspective. (Just checked WP:RS/P and BBC has only one entry and it is green) That is, just the fact alone that Voice of America is a state-sponsored "external service" does not exclude it from being reliable. Of course, many state-sponsored services are thinly veiled propaganda machines that we do not consider reliable, but we don't do that simply because they are "external services". CapnZapp (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't doubt the BBC World Service is a RS, and I've used it frequently as such myself. And, I agree, the mere fact that a media outlet is state sponsored does not make it unreliable. Chetsford (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask if this external/surrogate terminology is widely used? I am embarrassed to say I'm not familiar with it. Do you believe the distinction is important in determining reliability? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Are qualified bias sources reliable?

    TamilNet and NESOHR, which have been accepted as qualified pro-rebel sources in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources have been used as the sole source for many alleged attacks on civilians by the Sri Lankan government in an extensive list. I am not challenging the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation classification of the TamilNet and the NESOHR as qualified source (pro-rebel), however asking here if these WP:BIAS/WP:QS can be used as sole source for serious allegations against the Sri Lankan Government? Cossde (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You had said earlier that you will respect the admin's verdict on the vetting of qualified sources in the SL reconciliation project, which can be used with explicit attribution (which they have been). But now you are reopening the same discussions that have already been done to death here and and at the project. You are again re-challenging the admin's verdicts. The above sources were not regarded as questionable sources (WP:QS), but qualified sources. You are conflating two different things (again), even after being told this before: [68]. Oz346 (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oz346, my use of the WP:QS tag here was in reference to the apparent conflict of interest these sources have in this article as WP:QS states Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest . As I said before I not challenging SLR classification of the TamilNet and NESOHR as qualified source (pro-rebel), in fact I am basing my argument here on its review and classification. Per NPOV Bias in source states A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether. . In which case is it correct to add controversial content with TamilNet or NESOHR as the sole source. In any case both TamilNet and the NESOHR appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources in these cases as well, which questions this practice of using these two sources in this article. Cossde (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cossde Qualified sources are subclass of reliable sources as the admin Sebastian explained in this old discussion. The project you linked to states: "Qualified source: A source that may be reliable in certain contexts, but always needs to be used with a qualification (also called “attribution”) such as “pro-rebel”, “state owned” or the name itself." Therefore, they can be used with explicit attribution. Please read the old discussion where a consensus already exists before opening new discussions about the same topics.--- Petextrodon (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Christian Chronicle on the International Churches of Christ

    Could I have input on whether The Christian Chronicle would be considered reliable and independent for claims about the International Churches of Christ? This has come up at Talk:International Churches of Christ#WP:RECENT. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    From their website "An international newspaper for Churches of Christ". Does anything more need to be said about independence? TarnishedPathtalk 10:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to our article on the ICOC, it and the Churches of Christ split from one another in 1993, and it's the latter that the paper has an association with. However, both the fact that the two groups have a common origin and the fact that the paper is associated with a "rival" (for want of a better word) raise concerns about its objectivity. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then there's their about page which suggest they have absolutely no editorial policy at all. I don't know how this could be considered reliable. TarnishedPathtalk 10:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I right that this is about a tiff between two different religious groups, ICOC and a separate organization called COC? And CC is published by COC (not by ICOC)? In that case it seems like it would be appropriate for noncontroversial statements about COC, but little else. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So the issue at hand is a quote where the churches of Christ (a 1-2million member church group) at a meeting held I believe at their main university apologised for using the word “cult” in their description of the breakaway group the ICOC. Would that newspaper be a reliable source for that statement? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is lifehacker reliable for podcasts

    I've cited LifeHacker (lifehacker.com) fairly often when writing articles about podcasts (i.e. CrossBread, Imaginary Advice and Earth Break). I recently started using WP:UPSD and noticed that it flags the source as generally unreliable, which made me want to investigate further. The source isn't listed at RSP yet, however, it looks like it's been discussed a few times here at RSN (i.e. in 2011, 2012, 2020, and 2021). It seems like most of the previous discusses weren't impressed with the source. The website appears to have been aquired by Ziff Davis about a year ago now and has a list of staff and editorial policies (including a corrections policy). The site seems decent to me, but maybe I'm missing something? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Daily Sabah reliable sources?

    It was previously discussed but it need 1 more discussion as explained here [[69]]. Daily Sabah is claimed a propaganda outlet for the Turkish ruling AK Party [[70]], spreading fake news [[71]], https://web.archive.org/web/20190408115630/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/19/the-u-s-tried-to-kill-erdogan-says-editor-in-chief-of-turkish-daily/ and atacking other journalists [[72]]. Is Daily Sabah a reliable sources for Wikipedia? Shadow4dark (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_321#RfC:_Daily_Sabah. Do you mean "need 1 more discussion so I can put it on WP:RSP"? I have to say, starting discussions for that purpose doesn't strike me as a necessarily good idea, and I think it goes against the spirit of WP:RSPCRITERIA. Adding stuff to WP:RSP is not a goal in itself, let it grow "naturally".
    That said, per previous discussion I don't think it should be used for anything important. I just used it in Yine Bir Gülnihâl, seemed ok-ish to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but a sources that claims that Turkish President Erdogan will be killed by U.S should be never used on Wikipedia. Shadow4dark (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per [73], that view is largely in effect, WP:RSP-mention or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Middle East Monitor

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

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

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

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

    Thank you for your summary, this is highly concerning particularly combined with the (probably fringe) views described in the page.
    I would consider this worthy of an RfC after insofar as criteria are met, is that something you would agree with? FortunateSons (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    All the MEMO report says is that El Mostaqbal reported this. And they did. And it also says The allegations have been denied by both the Ukrainian embassy in Egypt as “Russian propaganda”, while Orascom Development, the owner of the El Gouna resort issued a statement saying the reports were “completely false.”' MEMO does not report that this is true, they report that it was reported and that the both the Ukrainian embassy and the Egyptian government denied it. All of that is true. nableezy - 16:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems fine then. I wouldn't say this could cast any doubt on a source's reliability.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It attributes some to El Mostaqbal; others it puts in its own voice:

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

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

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

    Al-Alawi, having never existed, also never had a brother.
    Further, regardless of what it puts in its own voice and what it attributes, I find it very concerning for a source to be pushing fringe conspiracy theories without any level of scepticism, and for it to fail to correct that error when it is raised with them - to me, those are indications that the source is generally unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it attributes that too. You're quoting out of context. What it says about the body is Al-Alawi’s body was discovered in the Red Sea city of Hurghada, with fractures and bruises found on the body. The cause of death was due to a cerebral hemorrhage as a result of a severe brain injury. The report, citing a source, also disclosed that the journalist had been beaten by a group of people. That is, once again, citing the report. And there is no error in what they report, they are saying that so and so reported such and such. And that is true. They also say that so and so say it is Russian propaganda. That is also true. Your claim that they are "pushing fringe conspiracy theories" is completely unsubstantiated, they are relaying what was reported and attributing it to who reported it, and also attributing who says it is not true. It has a link to the interview, making that attributed as well. You are misrepresenting what they are reporting. nableezy - 22:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is attributing to the report that "the journalist" had been beaten by a group of people. It's not attributing the claim that he died.
    Further, the interview is linked, but MEMO is saying in its own voice that the interview was given by Al-Alawi's brother - the brother who doesn't exist.
    Regardless, is it not concerning that MEMO spends so little time verifying its stories that it is literally pushing Russian conspiracy theories, stories that it refuses to retract? This is not the behavior of a reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very clearly saying all this is from the report. You can tell that by the word "also". What is there to retract? That El Mostaqbal reported this? They did. nableezy - 22:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading differs - the "also" refers to their earlier explicit mention of the report. And what there is to retract is the entire story; they are presenting - and thus promoting - Russian conspiracy theories as credible, saying things such as the report disclosed rather then the report alleges. The fact that they attribute parts (but not all - clearly you at least agree that the story presents both Al-Alawi and his brother as real people) doesn't change that. BilledMammal (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The story they are "presenting" is that El Mostaqbal reported this. That remains true. At most it is missing a "purported" in front of brother when linking to the interview. They very clearly are reporting who said what, and who said its not true. They even include the claim that it is Russian propaganda. There isnt any part of what they are actually reporting that is an issue. nableezy - 23:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That really isn’t how an average person would read the article, and even if it was, their statement and lack of retraction is nevertheless a reason not to use them in any area with controversy. FortunateSons (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Im aware of your feelings on sources you dislike, along with your efforts to remove them from certain topics, you dont need to repeat them multiple times in the same section. There isnt anything in this to retract, what they reported is accurate, and I see no reason why this source is not perfectly usable. If you feel they should issue a correction there is a link at the bottom of the story for you to contact them. nableezy - 23:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even you agree they present the brothers as real people; don’t you think they need to retract that?
    And the NYT has already contacted them; their response was concerning, as I quoted above. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn’t appear to be true at all. nableezy - 13:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which aspect? BilledMammal (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That it is their response and not some independent reporter's who writes for a different site. nableezy - 13:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is certainly different from using “alleged” at the very least, if they are using such a source. Additionally, the conduct described above is certainly still concerning. FortunateSons (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Selfstudier that this discussion seems a misuse of the noticeboard. It is not relevant to some article and the publication isn't in RSP. But looking at the dicussion the thought occurred to me, I bet it has to do with NGO Monitor, and sure enough we have [74]. Why am I not surprised. NadVolum (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not misuse of this Noticeboard to discuss whether a widely used source that we now discover has a penchant for pushing Russian disinformation and conspiracy theories is reliable.
    As far as I know, this has no relation to NGO monitor. BilledMammal (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A "penchant" denotes a widespread tendency, "pushing" denotes a conscious decision to spread something, again with the strong implication of repetition. Here we have a single report, which attributes the story to somebody else and states that it has been denied.
    I agree that, if MEM regularly published articles sourced to Russian propaganda, or if they had published this story as fact and repeatedly asserted its truth we would have to look at whether it was reliable for news relating to the Russia/Ukraine conflict. But that is not what this is about, is it? --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I say a penchant because of Aris’ response when challenged. The issue appears systemic.
    Further, while some is attributed, not all is, despite the entire story being disinformation. ::::But that is not what this is about, is it? This is about the reliability of the source, nothing else? BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bah, one not even much of an incident, and it is systemic? Then every newsorg is unreliable by that standard. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s systemic because MEMO told the NYT "we don’t make any attempt to verify stories before publishing them". BilledMammal (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can’t find anything by Ben Aris on MEMO. I can’t find he has any position there either. His Twitter profile doesn’t mention MEMO, so I don’t know what his unwilling to verify things has to do with MEMO. It also isn’t a normal thing to use quote marks for things nobody ever said. nableezy - 10:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears MEMO doesn’t publicly list the author of their articles. And I was paraphrasing - or do you think I was doing so inaccurately? BilledMammal (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What we can say for certain is that NYT is attributing the unsubstantiated claim to Ben Aris (whose name doesn't appear anywhere on MEMO's website). M.Bitton (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn’t even say he writes for MEMO and the sentence structure is he referenced the MEMO article, and from his twitter he does. But he writes for BNE Intellinews. Paraphrases don’t use quotes. If anything that would be a sign of unreliability and disinformation. I see no evidence whatsoever that he writes for MEMO, much less represents them and their editorial policies. nableezy - 13:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading differs - and clearly so do others here. BilledMammal (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What others? Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide any evidence that he writes for MEMO or has any position there. A listing of his articles at MuckRack shows nothing at all. He is also not listed anywhere on MEMO's list of editors and regular contributors. Please provide any evidence at all for the claim that MEMO said anything like what you say they said. nableezy - 13:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At least they attributed the claims, unlike the New York Times (enjoy reading this discussion about the self-declared beacon of journalistic integrity). M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you elaborate on where the linked thread discussed attribution? The only comments I can find when searching by term are my own. FortunateSons (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The linked thread is about a fabricated story by NYT (it goes without saying that attribution is way above those who sink that low). M.Bitton (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware, I participated in that thread. However, the claims about the article in the NYT are both highly disputed and unrelated to the issue of attribution. As the New York Times generally enjoys a high reliability and the linked discussion did not come to a different conclusion, I am confused about the purpose of your comment. Could you elaborate? FortunateSons (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple, if the NYT can screw up, so can MEMO and the NYT screwup is rather more severe than anything MEMO is allegedly guilty of. All this is just trying to make a mountain of a very small molehill. Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ChatGPT and Academic Journals

    Given some recent discussions in online spaces such as Reddit and Twitter regarding the use of ChatGPT in academic journals, I think it's worth discussing here. Searching terms such as "I am an AI language model" -chatgpt -llm and "As of my last knowledge update" -chatgpt -llm in Google Scholar bring up concerns. Some research also indicates that peer reviewers are increasingly using LLMs to review work (see Liang et al., 2024). Some journals seem more prone to these issues (e.g., I noticed Radiology Case Reports has had multiple articles with LLM phrasing), but I'm not sure what the best practice looks like moving forward. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not give those journals the same treatment as other websites caught using AI? Reliability of CNET and Kotaku were both downgraded due to their undisclosed use of AI. Formerly credible journals can go trashy. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of media attention to academic journals, but examples like above and whatever this is is a clear giveaway of its quality. ♠ Ca talk to me! 11:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with what's been said above, I think the best process here is to bring up specific problems (including unreviewed AI-generated content) with specific journals, and if the evidence is convincing, and deprecate them. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's worth pointing out that Google Scholar includes a lot of stuff that is... not scholarly, and some stuff that is not even attempting to portray itself as scholarly and is definitely not an WP:RS by any other standard. That much isn't new - you can't just rely on something as a source because it appears there. And even some actual journals aren't reliable when you look closer. If you need a quick at-a-glance measure, citation counts can tell you something - it's very noticeable that none of the papers in that search have ever been cited by anyone. --Aquillion (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is becoming a bigger issue as time goes on. AI can assist academic journals such as for detecting plagiarism, but I do think that AI content, if used by a journal, may still end up going though editorial oversight, which is what WP:RS does require. I know that some peer reviewed articles have been generated manually (without AI) to test if journals catch the nonsense and even then they have passed peer review... Ramos1990 (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know how we are thankful when some obvious troll opens up a disruptive ANI report, because it helps us spot and exclude the troll? Well, it's the same thing when journals publish articles with the phrase "I am an AI language model" in it. Be thankful, as it helps us spot and exclude the unreliable journal. I do not believe this is a problem in real scholarship, but I do think it's going to be a great way to differentiate between real scholarship and pseudoscholarship in Google Scholar search results. Levivich (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Encyclopedia of Communication and Information

    Hello, I wanted to ask whether the following source fulfills the requirements of reliable sources:

    Ruben, Brent D. (2001). "Models Of Communication". Encyclopedia of Communication and Information. Macmillan Reference. ISBN 978-0-02-865386-0.

    For the publisher, see Macmillan Reference. For the author, see Brent David Ruben. The article is also available online at [75]. An IP insists that this source is unreliable and keeps removing it from the GA article Models of communication. This is being discussed here. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliable for what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello AndyTheGrump and thanks for taking a look. The source was used to support how the term models of communication is defined. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What specific text is it being cited for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim removed was Models of communication ... try to provide a simple explanation of the process by highlighting its most basic characteristics and components. As simplified pictures, they only present the aspects that, according to the model's designer, are most central to communcation.[1][2] Phlsph7 (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Ruben 2001, Models Of Communication.
    2. ^ West 2010.
    Well yes, that's what the source says, closely paraphrased. And given how non-controversial it is, simply explaining what a 'model' is, I can't see how anyone could suggest it isn't reliable. Whether it is actually appropriate to begin the section it is being cited for with such a generalised definition is another question, but not one for this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your assessment. Do you think it is too closely paraphrased as per WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE? This can often be a challenge with definitions since one has to be very careful with one's choice of words. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think the argument you’re having is fundamentally about source reliability; I suggest WP:3O instead. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are various arguments involved in the discussion, including WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, WP:UNCIVIL, and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. I used the notice board here to address this one since addressing all of them at once is probably not feasible. I'll see how this develops and I'll keep your suggestion in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Liveuamap

    https://liveuamap.com aggregates social media posts and plots them on a map. It originated during the 2014 events in Ukraine and thereafter became especially well-known for its aggregation of social media content regarding the Syrian civil war, which it used to create a detailed, constantly-updating map of wartime factional control over the country (https://syria.liveuamap.com). You can learn more about this website at the Wikipedia entry for Liveuamap.

    I managed to locate two previous RSN discussions involving Liveuamap. An April 2022 discussion recognized that the website is an aggregator which is only as reliable as its own sources. Editors also came to the conclusion that this edit, which cited Liveuamap to determine the control status of a town in Ukraine, violated WP:RS, in part because Liveuamap was itself citing a Telegram Messenger post for that particular piece of information.

    While not the main topic of discussion, Liveuamap was mentioned in passing in an April 2017 discussion, where it one editor argued that it was not RS. Another editor mentioned its value as one of the few websites hosting a full, frequently-updated map of the Syrian civil war, but did not try to make the case that it was RS.

    The infoboxes of Wikipedia articles on military conflicts often contain maps created by editors on Wikimedia Commons. The question I am posing here relates to a discussion at Talk:Syrian civil war#Infobox map, which has led to a suggestion that the geographic data (i.e. front lines and zones of factional control) from Liveuamap's Syrian map be copied onto a user-generated map on Wikimedia Commons and then used in the Wikipedia article's infobox; the previous map was derived from a Twitter account, and the file was determined unsuitable for Wikipedia by consensus. A supporter of this idea argues that Liveuamap ought to be considered RS when used to draw maps that appear on Wikipedia, due to the fact that Liveuamap has itself been used as a source by reliable news organizations like Al Jazeera and others including BBC and CNN, though I am not personally aware of the latter two having cited it.

    Is the geographic data on Liveuamap reliable enough to derive maps that will appear on Wikipedia from it? Thank you for your time. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would be hesitant to use them, that’s for sure. Are you willing to elaborate on their “editorial” process? That part on their wiki page is short and potentially out of date. FortunateSons (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think they have an editorial process. It’s user-generated content, often from anonymous social media posters, being given geolocation metadata. It’s only as reliable as the tweets it aggregates. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    LiveUAmap is nice, but it's often out of date, the information is frequently vague, and the locations are frequently a bit odd. Not necessarily wrong, just odd. I wouldn't consider them a source suitable for wikipedia use. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would consider liveuamap.com to be unreliable when citing content on Wikipedia. With an exception being made for it when used to cite ongoing conflict maps, in which case it should be reliable. Liveuamap is the only source that maps several conflicts, such as the Syrian civil war and Yemeni civil war with great detail to the extent that which side controls each village. Most news outlets, such as Al Jazeera, have cited liveuamap in the past in when showing maps of the Ukraine war and Syrian civil war. Ecrusized (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Open wiki citation problem

    I recently spotted and had to remove a concerning amount of contents that cite self-published sources, particularly Namuwiki, a South Korea-based wiki platform. This is an open wiki that allows anonymous editors and has little-to-no moderation (no requirement for reliable sources, for starters), which should disqualify it under WP:SPS, yet there were over 100 articles that cited it. Most of them were Korea-related topics, but some others were not, including this numerous citations found in List of paratrooper forces and the one for Elsa (Frozen), a good article.

    Namuwiki is already listed as "Considered unreliable" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources, but considering how this has spreaded over different parts of Wikipedia, it should be on the radar. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    defence-blog.com

    Should we revisit the defence-blog.com reliability? There was a discussion in the past, please see here. Their website has grown since; the about page clearly states who they are [76]; the content is written in a professional manner. My observation over the time (as I follow various defense related news) is that their publications are generally accurate. Thoughts? -- Mindaur (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would generally be very hesitant to use them. If we wanted to use them (they probably don’t meet the requirements for experts (or can you show that they do?), so as a news source, we would at minimum need:
    1. More details on when and how they are Wikipedia:USEDBYOTHERS, particularly by RS, governments and (if applicable) academics institutions.
    2. Elaboration on their editorial content: do they have independent editors, how are stories chosen, etc.
    3. A clear distinction between them and a Wikipedia:Selfpub.
    If you can get at least 2 (better 3), it might be worth a in-depth discussion, otherwise we would probably consistently apply the policies detailed in the last discussion and not use it. FortunateSons (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they still have a number of issues, as far as I can tell while the quantity of work has increased it doesn't much seem like the quality has. It still looks like churnalism (not sure the related COPYVIVO concerns are done either). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bobby Singh Bansal and Autar Singh Sandhu

    Article: Battle of Michni

    Are Bobby Singh Bansal's Remnants of the Sikh Empire and this book published by Autar Singh Sandhu in 1935 reliable?

    Bobby Singh Bansal is a self proclaimed historian, a title seemingly conferred upon him through his interests as opposed to any educational background or training. His current profession is a city councillor in the UK and he used to be a business student prior to undertaking several projects related to history and film making. Both of his books published thus far are technically self published, his earliest book: The Lions Firanghis: Europeans at the Court of Lahore was published by Coronet House and his other book, Remnants of the Sikh Empire, was published by Hay House. There does not appear to be any in depth scholarly reviews of his work.

    Autar Singh Sandhu, as far as I can tell as there is a dearth of any information available about him, published a book about Hari Singh Nalwa in 1935-[77]. That seems to be the only book he authored.

    A user is insisting both sources are reliable; at first erroneously claiming Autar Singh Sandhu published a book on the same subject in 1987-[78] and then on the basis that both Bobby Singh Bansal and Autar Singh Sandhu appear in some reliable secondary sources as a citation, though I don't think that counts for much as books often cite a large corpus and not every citation within them is reliable; many primary sources are used as citations as well but we cannot use them as standalone sources in Wikipedia. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Massacre of the Innocents

    This is about [79]. My own take is that sources are bunk. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah. Certainly not enough to affirm the historicity of the pericope. The French source is usable enough, but really only says "this is in the New Testament." The Veracity source scans as a devotional blog to me, with none of the indicia of reliability I would want in a source. That said, my knowledge is obviously incomplete. I will say I am not sure I love the descriptor "myth" here, but I would certainly object to any wording implying that the massacre is somehow historical fact. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait what. If something's in a painting it's not a myth!? This changes everything. Bon courage (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The First 'source' cited isn't a source at all. Not for anything relevant anyway. Definitely not for whether the 'massacre' actually happened, since it says nothing on that question. The second at least expresses an opinion on the matter, but since it appears to be the opinion of a 'Computer Network Engineer', clearly doesn't meet WP:RS. Both sources are useless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ProPakistani.pk

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

    Israeli based news sources

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

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

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

    educationengland.org.uk

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

    WikiLeaks on its own article

    More eyes needed for a question raised at Talk:WikiLeaks, on citing WikiLeaks on the WikiLeaks article as a primary source where the document is discussed elsewhere (RfC suggests can be acceptable), and for content about WikiLeaks itself (RfC does not cover). It thus revolves around two questions:

    1. Can WikiLeaks document pages be cited on the WikiLeaks article as a primary source where the document is used by reliable secondary sources?

    2. Can WikiLeaks be cited for information about itself e.g. "On [date] WikiLeaks said it published X document"?

    Cambial — foliar❧ 08:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding your first question, this was basically the consensus of the last RfC, so I see no problems with that. Of course, it *may* be cited, if this adds value to the the article and doesn't violate other policies.
    Regarding the second question, this seems to satisfy the WP:ABOUTSELF creiteria, so I don't see problems from the reliability standpoint, but it may not be DUE if no other sources reported on this. Alaexis¿question? 09:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked yesterday about going to a Noticeboard. I thought we would agree on the question and board first. Of course you ignored that question again and went here without agreeing on what to ask or how. You didnt even post notification of this
    When you said it revolves around two questions, this misrepresents some of the issues.
    1. Cambial says that WikiLeaks writing about itself is not self-published. It obviously is
    2. Cambial also insisted that WikiLeaks alone is more than sufficient, and removed CN tags about it to restore citations only to WikiLeaks.
    3. Cambial did not ask about one of the central issues - whether or not WikiLeaks saying documents are from a third party involves claims about third parties.
    4. There are lots of RSes that have the same information. Linking to WikiLeaks adds nothing and Cambial wont say why it is useful, but I asked many times
    5 The instances are not WikiLeaks said it published X document and it was never suggested changing it to that. They use wikivoice Softlem (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1214976939"