Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458

Additional notes:

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

Start a new discussion

Al-Mayadeen

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

almayadeen.net   shows 187 uses. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I think they should be classified as Generally Unreliable

1. They promotes the US bioweapons in Ukraine conspiracy theory [1]
2. Their owners are anonymous and it's suspected that it's funded by Iran and Hezbollah [2]
3. They said themselves that the Palestinian "cause" would be their centerpiece, so they are unlikely to provide reliable coverage of the region [3]

Alaexis_¿question? 07:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"Al-Mayadeen" is a fake news, conspiratorial outlet, and it should be deprecated.

Check its wikipedia page and its "Ownership" section which reveals its funding. "Al-Mayadeen" outlet's owner is anonymous. The outlet has also been described as a joint Iranian-Assadist propaganda project.

In news reporting, "Al-Mayadeen" outlet is explicitly pro-Assad, pro-Iran and pro-Russia. That website has a pattern of promoting conspiracy theories of outlets like Grayzone, Sputnik, PressTV, SANA, etc.

In Syria, it is a vehement opponent of Syrian opposition, dehumanises the Free Syrian Army as "terrorists" and labels Assad regime's indiscriminate bombardment operations as "cleansing". It is strongly pro-Russia and describes the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a "special operation to demilitarize and "denazify" Ukraine" and literally labelled the Zelensky government in Ukraine as a "Nazi regime".

Its clear that this outlet is nothing but a propaganda venture that doesnt have basic journalistic standards or even care about producing real news.

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

References

RFC: Al-Mayadeen

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

---

What is the reliability of Al-Mayadeen

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

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

Responses (Al-Mayadeen)

• Option 4 Like RT (TV network) and Sputnik (news agency) the primary purpose of this organisation appears to be propaganda that wilfully distorts facts to fit its agenda. It has no place on Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 A propaganda outlet of a dictatorial regime. Jeppiz (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4: Depracate

I have explained the overtly unreliable nature of this fake news-outlet in my previous comment above the RfC section. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 If it pro-Assad and pro-Hezbollah, editors would have to figure out when it is lying and when it is not. Better do not use it at all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 I'm against deprecation of sources on the bases of bias. So I spent some time reading some of the articles separate from the one in question. This source should never be used. Several articles contained lies and I don't mean I disagree with their interpretation, but that they give a link for their source and their sources states the opposite of the wording they have chosen. There are other extremely problematic issues with the articles, but the deliberate misuse of sources to try and mislead readers rules out any use of this site. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think it'd be instructive if you illustrate further. Not doubting you, but given some of the other commentary here. Andre🚐 23:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can you provide an example of an outright, unambiguous, intentional "lie" promoted by this outlet? That could potentially change my vote, but I'm not too thrilled about deprecating an outlet based on "they've published lies" without some more analysis and discussion. Thanks. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry I'm not willing to provide links to this site, I believe it's that problematic. This is my analysis, and as I have said I'm generally against deprecation, if you wish to see the problems I suggest you do your own analysis. I'm not just saying "they've published lies", I spent an hour or so going through the details and articles of the site and what I found was deeply troubling. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Did you see outright, unambiguous, intentional lies, or opinions that troubled you and shocked your moral sensibilities? I see plenty of the latter, but not nearly enough of the former to vote option 4. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  As per my previous comments I see outright intentional lies, this has nothing to do with opinions or 'moral sensibilities' but the deliberate distortion of a source to make statements that are the inverse of what the source states. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's disappointing that you're willing to throw potentially useful information down the memory hole, due to alleged "intentional lies", but you are unable/unwilling to provide even a single example. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  Oh shut up. You've made your point over and over. I've not "alleged" anything, while your entire involvement on this board appears to be about making aspersions at other editors. This source intentionally misuses sources to make statements that are not backed up by those sources, and that is one of its minor failings. But please go on believing the opposite, you must be right and all the other commentators in this RFC wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Also maybe read WP:SATISFY. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 I'm convinced by the arguments that we do not need this source and we can safely remove it. Andre🚐 22:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 The above arguments say it all, we can find sources that are more reliable. C͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏u͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏r͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏s͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏ed Peace (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Sock
• Option 3 in the best case, per my arguments above (promotion of conspiracy theories, affiliation with Hezbollah, having a "cause"). Alaexis_¿question? 07:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 per the previous arguments, as well as previous discussions on the issue. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3+ This is an unamibigously generally unreliable source. Our article on it is a little in need of updating and I actually have a windowful of tabs with mentions via Google News and Google Scholar that I've been meaning to incorporate into the article, but it is clear from them that the issues identified in the 2010s are worse rather than better. I hesitate about deprecation, as there might be times when it could be considered useful (e.g. for the wisdom of Hassan Nasrallah) but I wouldn't object to deprecation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 - I could be convinced to vote option 3, but option 4 is a travesty.

It's frankly depressing to see how giddy editors are to deprecate non-Western sources. Systemic bias hard at work, in my view. Al-Mayadeen is a widely-used source of information in the Arab world, with reporters in "most Arab countries" per our own article. Much of their staff consists of former Al Jazeera employees. Yes, they have a bias, which they lay out in detail in their "About us" section. It would be nice if other outlets followed suit, and dropped the ludicrous self-serving pretense that they're conducting "objective" journalism.

If we carry on like this, and every source that deviates from Western consensus is dismissed as "propaganda", "fake news", and "state funded", we will have an encyclopedia that only presents the mainstream Western point of view, to the exclusion of other points of view. The erroneous assumption that underlies this way of thinking is that the mainstream Western consensus represents "objectivity", while any deviation from that point of view represents an incorrigible "bias".

Biases are sort of like accents - almost nobody thinks that they have one, especially if everyone around them has the same accent that they do. Many small-minded people in the USA, who think that they don't have an accent, might make comments like "people from India don't speak English the right way". That's pretty much the attitude I get from the comments here, at the Venezuelanalysis RFC, and at many, many other places on Wikipedia. Non-Westerners don't do journalism "the right way", as defined by models like CNN and BBC.

The fact that sources that contradict mainstream Western consensus are so casually dismissed as "biased" suggests that most editors (practically all of whom are Westerners) are so steeped in pro-Western narratives that those narratives appear "normal" and "unbiased", and it also suggests that most editors aren't conversant in non-Western points of view about politics, which is why, when exposed to them, they apply a reductive analysis and conclude that they must be "fake news" or "pro-X propaganda". It's a huge blind spot on this website.

This source should be used to establish the notability of a topic, or to cite attributed opinions, but shouldn't be used to make Wikivoice statements of fact. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It's frankly depressing to see how giddy editors are to deprecate non-Western sources (and much else in your comment) is an aspersion, please strike it. I'm certainly not giddy to deprecate any source, I think your own biases are shown in how you depict other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"Bias is not unreliablity" is a straw man. This is an unreliable source because it's unreliable not because it's biased. Plenty of non-western media is excellent. From the same region, Enab Baladi, The New Arab, Asharq Al-Awsat, Al-Arabiya, The National, Arab News (mostly), Orient News are all reliable. Similarly, editors arguing that La Patilla is more reliable than Venezeulanalysis are not doing so because it is more western (in fact VA has more western writers than La Patilla does). Please don't let your general bugbear about bias overcome a basic evaluation of a dreadful news website. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, wp:cir, this site is obviously fake news. Cursed Peace (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Sock

• Option 4 Complete propaganda and fake news garbage. Piece of shit. Also, the commentator above me is barking at the wrong tree. We use TONS of non-western reliable sources. Tradedia^talk 02:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  I did use the term "non-Western" once, but what I'm really talking about are points of view that deviate from the mainstream western consensus, whether the outlets that express those points of view are geographically based in the west or not. I know this is off-topic so won't continue the discussion unless it appears immediately relevant, but could you name a couple of non-western sources that largely deviate from the mainstream western consensus on geopolitics that are labeled "reliable"? If you could, it might serve as a good point of contrast against Al-Mayadeen. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Well, Al Jazeera is reliable. South China Morning Post is still reliable last I checked. Haaretz. Uhh... "You name a couple of sources," isn't really how this works. Andre🚐 03:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  I was just curious about what sources he had in mind when he refers to non-western reliable outlets, in contrast to his characterizations of Al-Mayadeen as "complete propaganda" and "fake news". Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support option 3 or option 4. As Alaexis has pointed out above, the website promotes the Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory. There are at least 21 articles on the website with a "US biolabs" tag, but some, such as "US tested neuromodulators on socially vulerable Ukrainians", are not marked so. In addition, the outlet often cites unreliable sources for its "reporting", such as Twitter accounts ([4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]), MintPress News ([11] [12] [13] [14] [15]), and The Grayzone ([16] [17] [18] [19] [20]). In at least one case it has republished a fabricated news story from the Russian state outlet TASS, without marking it as such. Other than a brief mention in a Reuters article (which notes that "There was no independent confirmation of any of the attacks and Reuters could not ascertain whether they had taken place"), I could not find any reliable sources covering this alleged attack. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 This "news" source hosts holocaust denial articles, i.e. "The Holocaust — that great deception". I am not sure how anyone could read this and think "seems reliable to me" Cursed Peace (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Sock and double bold vote. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4. Clearest imaginable case. Neutrality^talk 02:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 Blatantly propaganda akin to RT. The Kip 04:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 Blatant propaganda, it is Hezbollah's version of RT. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 Obvious propaganda. Wonder if this falls under WP:SNOW now. Ladsgroup^overleg 01:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Al-Mayadeen)

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

Also pinging @Bobfrombrockley, who had very recently commented on this "news"-network elsewhere. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems at best "reliability unclear" or "consensus unclear." I had looked at it and presumed it a WP:NEWSORG, with a bias, but republishing material from other problematic sources is problematic. Andre🚐 22:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've put a notice on Talk:Al Mayadeen about this discussion. For the sake of participation can anyone suggest any other places to give notification? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  I left a note at Wikiproject Arab world about this. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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

RfC: Correo del Orinoco (Orinoco Tribune)

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

---

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

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

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

• Comment This RfC has been started at the request of M.Bitton. Correo del Orinoco is currently used in 92 pages   in the English Wikipedia. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 (at least)/4: Correo del Orinoco is a Venezuelan state-owned newspaper that is part of the Bolivarian Communication and Information System state media conglomerate. There's already a precedent in this noticeboard of demonstrating that outlets from this conglomerate publish and amplify misleading and/or false information, and that the fact that Venezuela is a country with a low level of freedom of the press affects its reliability, the main example being WP:TELESUR.

A report from the Venezuelan fact-checking coalition C-Informa "Portals of lies: the international swarm of 'independent media' at the service of Chavista narratives" (also mentioned above, in the currently opened RfC: Venezuelanalysis) explains how Correo del Orinoco is directed by a Venezuelan government official and has amplified propaganda in the past:

• In the case of media such as Venezuelanalysis, Orinoco Tribune and even the now censored Aporrea, a team full of current and former Venezuelan diplomats in the United States, former ministers and both former and active editors of Telesur, RT and Venezuelan state media operates.
• It is directed by Jesús Rodríguez-Espinoza, who was Venezuelan consul in Chicago, between 2008 and 2017, replacing Martín Sánchez (Aporrea / Venezuelanalysis). His articles were used at the beginning of the digital campaign in favor of Alex Saab.

Its bias and lack of neutrality shows that the outlet does not have editorial independence, and its reliability has already been questioned in Wikipedia discussions throughout the years, including due to the republication from unreliable or deprecated outlets:

• On the much discussed issue of independence of Venezuelanalysis staff, referring in this particular instance to Eva Golinger, here is evidence of the sort of independence these people have from the Venezuelan State [...] For the language impaired, it means that the Chavez regime, through Congress, has approved some $3.2 million, so that Golinger's propaganda rag can reach more people. – Alekboyd, WP:RSN/Archive 55, 10:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• After all that research, you did not find that Eva Golinger just got $3.2 million from the Chavez regime to carry on with her propaganda activities in Correo del Orinoco? – Alekboyd, WP:RSN/Archive 58, 3 March 2010
• Correo del Orinoco and Venezuelanalysis are both parrots of state propaganda. – SandyGeorgia, WT:VEN/Archive 4, 15 April 2019
• According to the Antisemitism in Venezuela 2013 report by the Venezuelan Confederation of Israelite Associations (CAIV) which focuses on the issue of antisemitism in Venezuela, "distorted news, omissions and false accusations" of Israel originate from Iranian media in Latin America, especially from HispanTV. Such "distorted news" is then repeated by the Russia's RT News and Cuba's Prensa Latina, and Venezuela’s state media, including SIBCI, AVN, TeleSUR, [...] Correo del Orinoco and Ciudad CCS – SandyGeorgia, WP:RSN/Archive 265#RfC: HispanTV, 19 April 2019
• The recently created Orinoco Tribune [...] uses Telesur, Grayzone and Venezuelanalysis (see WP:RSP) as its primary sources – ZiaLater, WP:RSN/Archive 287#RfC: Grayzone, 18 December 2019
• [...] Chavismo forced owners of paper manufacturing companies into exile on bogus charges so they could take over paper production and allocate paper only to Chavez-friendly press like Correo del Orinoco (2009) [...] – SandyGeorgia, WP:RSN/Archive 415#RfC: La Patilla, 15 August 2023

Indeed, a quick look through fact checkers will show a consistent history of publishing misleading and/or false information, and how Orinoco Tribune participated in the influence operation on behalf of Colombian businessman Alex Saab, currently indicted with money laundering charges:

Fact check articles (2016-2023)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Una cuña con cifras imprecisas, sin respaldo o descontextualizadas de Venezuela" [An ad with inaccurate, unsupported or decontextualized figures from Venezuela]. Cotejo.info. 26 November 2016. "¿Será verdad lo dicho por Maduro en la Memoria y Cuenta 2018?" [Is what Maduro said in the 2018 Annual Report and Accounts be true?]. Cocuyo Chequea. 15 January 2019. "¿El tren San Diego–Guacara está operativo?" [Is the San Diego-Guacara train operational?]. Es Paja. 20 February 2020. "Engañoso: ¿Cabo Verde reconoció que orden de arresto de Alex Saab estaba a nombre de otra persona?" [Misleading: Did Cape Verde acknowledge that Alex Saab's arrest warrant was in someone else's name?]. Cazadores de Fake News. 24 July 2021. "¿MUD y partidos del G4 "retiraron apoyo" a candidato Garrido en Barinas, como tituló Versión Final?" [MUD and G4 parties "withdrew support" to candidate Garrido in Barinas, as headlined by Versión Final?]. Es Paja. 7 January 2022. "¿Simón Bolívar fue designado "el hombre más importante del siglo XIX" por la BBC?" [Simón Bolívar was named "the most important man of the 19th century" by the BBC]. Es Paja. 22 April 2022. "Es falso que Simón Bolívar fue elegido como el hombre más importante de la historia por la BBC" [Es falso que Simón Bolívar fue elegido como el hombre más importante de la historia por la BBC]. Cotejo.info. 21 October 2022. "El origen de la Operación de Influencia FreeAlexSaab" [The origin of the FreeAlexSaab Influence Operation]. Cazadores de Fake News. 27 November 2022. "Anatomía de la operación de influencia a favor de Alex Saab" [Anatomy of the influence operation in favor of Alex Saab]. C-Informa. 16 December 2022. "Portales de la mentira: cómo es el enjambre internacional de "medios independientes" al servicio de las narrativas chavistas" [Portals of lies: the international swarm of "independent media" at the service of chavista narratives]. C-Informa. 24 March 2023. "¿El salario integral aumentó 546%, como informó el canal Patria en Telegram?" [Did the comprehensive salary increase 546%, as reported by the Patria channel on Telegram?]. Es Paja. 4 May 2023.

All in all, Correo del Orinoco cannot be considered a reliable source. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 (at least): This site is far, far worse than either Venezuelanalysis and Telesur; it is basically a version of them that doesn't even attempt to mix in any respectable reporting or analysis. It is essentially an aggregation site for kooks and conspiracists. On the current frontpage there is content syndicated from Grayzone and Al-Mayadeen for example. I don't think it's necessarily worth deprecating, but we wouldn't lose anything by never using it ever. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 1) like any other source, its "reliability in context" is what matters. Checking the first article of the 92 pages   that it's used in, I see no reason to believe that what is attributed to an official document would be unreliable or made-up. A quick search for the "Official Gazette No. 39,454" brings up this source, which confirms that Bashar al Assad was indeed a recipient of the "Order of the Liberator". Without the crucial information that is listed in the first source, it would be near impossible to verify this simple fact. 2) I didn't ask for this RfC in particular. What I did ask is for the OP to stop removing all the sources that are associated with the Venezuelan government (including government official websites) and instead, to discuss them on this board. M.Bitton (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  If it's "near impossible to verify a simple fact" without using Venezuela state sources, the fact is probably undue. And I find it hard to believe that for chavismo to install what was once Venezuela's highest honor on someone of the "caliber" of Bashar al-Assad is not mentioned elsewhere. So. Here are just a few sources that will provide some context and relevance: [21][22] [23] [24] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't buy into the UNDUE when it comes to simple facts such as this one (numerous first class imbeciles have decorations of all kinds listed in their article) and in any case, that example was given to illustrate a point. M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  The Venezuelan government has lied even about its own official documents in the past. Since we're talking about Venezuela's Official Gazette, the Foreign Affairs Ministry claimed that Colombian business had been appointed as a diplomat (special envoy) in the Official Gazette N° 6.373 Extraordinary. It required lawyers from Saab's current trial in the United States to look after the original document in the Library of Congress (a third and independent source) to demonstrate that this was false, and said appointment never took place. Correo del Orinoco continues repeating this false information ad nauseam, even after a year it has been debunked and published by fact checkers. As Sandy has mentioned, if a fact is relevant enough, it will surely be covered in independent sources. In the case of Assad's condecoration, there are a couple (besides the ones above): Reuters, El País, Chicago Tribune, La Nación.

I started the RfC on Correo del Orinoco because it was the last source whose reliability I disputed, and it also had more uses than Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias (26 uses  , as of this date), but both sources are part of Bolivarian Communication and Information System media conglomerate, just as the deprecated WP:TELESUR, and routinely publish each others' news (something that I explained in a comment linked in the edit summaries but that you refused to read, saying that it was "an irrelevant discussion"). Most of these issues affect the other outlets in question as a result. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the other governments don't lie? What Sandy said doesn't hold much water: if a list is DUE, then so is every factual entry in it. M.Bitton (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

First, that's whataboutism and clearly not what I said. Second, it's a response to your claim saying I see no reason to believe that what is attributed to an official document would be unreliable or made-up, giving an example where it happened. Plenty of reliable sources can be found about these documents and are more credible about its content (and especially its interpretation). --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

No it's not and what I said is not a claim, it's statement. If the info is verifiable and plenty of reliable sources can easily be found to support it, then why did you obliterate it? M.Bitton (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with M.Bitton that NoonIcarus was probably wrong to remove the fact about Assad's honour from his BLP; it would have been better to flag with "unreliable inline" or "better source" so other editors could verify and insert alternative sources. But that's an issue with how generally unreliable sources are dealt with, not an argument against the general unreliability of this source. (If the source was deprecated, then full removal would be the correct thing to do of course.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I have treated the source in the same way as Telesur, as they both have the same editorial line and are part of the Bolivarian Communication and Information System conglomerate. Of course, I'm well aware that these removals can be disputed, and hopefully this RfC can help clearing that out. I only included Option 3 as an option given that I know there have been complaints about deprecating a source during its first discussion, but giving the precedents and evidence I think it is the right decision. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Per Bobfrombrockley, the "at least" is key. Wherever Venezuelanalysis ends up, this is worse. [25] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4: Just another propaganda & fake news outlet serving the interests of a dictatorship. Tradedia^talk 19:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4: Venezuela is notorious for its low level of freedom of the media. This is a state-owned company, which is most likely just there to satisfy the interests of the dictatorship in charge. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Al Jazeera - 2023

No consensus is going to come from this thread, and editors seem unable to restrict their comments to details of the source and not other editors.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to WP:RSPSS, the last discussion was on 2020. From reading the material in the discussions and supplementary material in different ones that refer to Al-Jazeera, it seems like the current consensus is that although biased in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Al-Jazeera is "generally reliable". The owner being Qatar (which directly funds a side in the conflict) according to the guidelines does not change the reliability of the source (although in other sources the person running it does change the consensus for some reason). I've seen some maps for example of Hebron published by Al-Jazeera, which were "exaggerated" to say the least, or showing a completely one sided picture ignoring history, but what brought me here was the quickness of their conclusions regarding the al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. During their coverage [26], Al-Jazeera made pretty bold claims. First of all, in large portions of their links, they state things as facts, e.g. You can also read more about the deadly Israeli bombing of a hospital in Gaza City here and see photos of the aftermath of the attack here. Second of all, they add the personal stories of course in order to encourage a certain narrative, while once again, stating the "facts": The Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital not only treated the many wounded in Gaza, it also sheltered people ordered by Israel to flee the north to “save themselves”. Thousands of children, women and the elderly believed they would be safe. But an Israeli air attack shattered that notion, killing at least 500 people and wounding hundreds more in what is widely being described as a massacre. The hospital was engulfed in flames with mutilated bodies scattered among the destruction – many of the victims little kids. Lastly, they add their own "investigation": Al Jazeera’s digital investigative unit has pinpointed the exact moment of the deadly attack through video analysis. There is only one problem. The majority of RSes right now, agree that the attack might have never happened. A discussion is happening right now at Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. As a person who is extremely familiar with the conflict, and studied it extensively for years, I already know that Al-Jazeera is many times dubious at best (and extremely opinionated), but seeing it with a green check-mark indicating that its investigations of what looks like an invisible attack might mistakenly count as reliable, is rather far fetched. They have later reported that a large number of countries and bodies investigated and concluded otherwise, but it seems as if they first take a side of the conflict as a sole source of truth (Gaza health ministry, run by Hamas, of dubious reliability), bolstering it with emotional view, adding investigations for things that might have never happened, and later reporting on the aftermath, of what might be their formation: The fallout from the air strike continues, with dozens of demonstrations in the region. Protests outside Israeli, US and French embassies immediately erupted in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Tunisia. I'm not aware of any correction made by Al-Jazeera of the subject, although I might be mistaken. I'm also not entirely sure about their reliability in other fields, but that's where my expertise ends, and I cannot attempt to deduct either way. I do know the DOJ ordered Al-Jazeera to register as a foreign agent of the government of Qatar, noting that the company’s style guide “reveals AJ+’s intention to influence audience attitudes with its reporting” and noted that its journalism count as "political activities" even if it views itself as "balanced".[27] I know it is a highly contentious topic, and for that reason I propose changing the green-checkmark to a warning (adding the reasoning in the appropriate description), and nothing more than that. Bar Harel (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC) A source can be generally reliable and still make mistakes, so long as they retract mistakes and issue corrections. We've seen that with the New York Times and other agencies who made the same mistake; the fact that we haven't seen that with Al Jazeera, who still has stories like Outrage spreads across Middle East after attack on Gaza hospital up, which says ...show their outrage in the aftermath of a deadly Israeli air attack on the Al-Ahli al-Arabi Hospital in Gaza, raises significant concerns about their reliability in this topic area. This article was also published after Israel claimed it wasn't responsible; it even mentions that, saying Israel has denied responsibility for the attack. The fact that they continued blaming Israel in their own voice with no evidence despite Israel claiming that it wasn't responsible amplifies these concerns. At the moment, we consider Al Jazeera generally reliable for all topics, with the note Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. I don't think this assessment is correct anymore; I suggest we continue considering Al Jazeera reliable generally, but within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area we asess it as "additional considerations apply", to give space for editors to properly evaluate their reliablility for specific claims. BilledMammal (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC) It certainly isn't great, but status as an WP:RS is based on a source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it's not appropriate to change a source's status over one event until / unless there's significant secondary coverage showing that that event has significantly impacted their reputation. --Aquillion (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC) It is not the first time such things happened. Even if we leave the DOJ or the video and the corresponding report I've attached here - within Wikipedia itself we've previously stated it is biased within the conflict. It just adds more and more evidence that the bias is so strong to the point that the accuracy or reliability can be questioned. Bar Harel (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC) If it’s not the first time, can we see some more examples? Downgrading a source should be based on a pattern of behaviour rather than a single incident - especially a recent incident. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC) The video I've posted is from a few months ago. The DOJ is from 2020, and the Wikipedia discussions are from what seems like years of discussions, with the final conclusion that it is biased in the conflict, as written on the WP:RSPSS. The downgrade of course is only relevant to the AI conflict. It's not new that it's partisan, we state it ourselves. Here I provide just another problem with the reliability, due to it being partisan. Bar Harel (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Like I said, the key point is the source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. "Here's some stuff they got wrong" (or even "here's some stuff that we can all agree they definitely got wrong) isn't a strong argument. The strongest argument is secondary coverage from high-quality sources discussing how reliable the source is. Al-Jazeera is a high-profile enough source that it should be easy to find secondary coverage of it. I'm just not seeing that in current coverage, which looks like [28][29][30][31]. That's reasonable WP:USEBYOTHERS and I feel we'd need more than a list of articles editors here take issue with to change their status in the face of that. Basically, if these things are significant enough to impact Al-Jazeera's reputation, there ought to be secondary coverage demonstrating that. --Aquillion (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC) I have no idea what Bharel means by "The majority of RSes right now, agree that the attack might have never happened." Everyone agrees the explosion happened (there are small craters and dead bodies to prove it happened). The question is one of who caused it to happen.VR talk 05:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC) The majority of the RSes agree that the "Israeli airstrike" never happened. Bar Harel (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC) The majority of RS actually agree that a conclusive determination is not possible. Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Agree with BilledMammal. A single event doesn't change a sources reliablity, but given the specifics "additional considerations" should be strengthened for the conflict area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Agree with BilledMammal. I think many of us remember weapons of mass destruction that never existed and were an excuse for a war to make a bunch of money for some corporatisations. TarnishedPathtalk 23:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Would we say "additional considerations" in regards to NYT when it comes to US Foreign Policy given the weapons of mass destruction which clearly didn't exist? TarnishedPathtalk 23:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Support - Unreliable (especially in Israel-Palestine conflict). Al Jazeera is state owned. It's owned by the Qatari Government. Qatar is not considered a free country with freedom of press [Freedom House]. Qatar is known to have favorable relations to organizations such as Hamas, Qatar funded Hamas for multiple years.[32] [33][34] Therefore, one must assume that one cannot trust a state owned newspaper in a topic that it's owner (The Qatari Government) has a clear interest.[35] [36][37] Jazeera is also a significant soft power asset of Qatar.[38] In topics in which the Qatari government has of a less clear interest. One can assume it's commentary is more reliable, yet still ought to be read with warning. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC) State owned or otherwise, it's reliable (especially in Israel-Palestine conflict) and will remain so until proven otherwise. M.Bitton (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Support - Unreliable: @Bharel has made some very valid points. Have seen Al Jazeera making dubious claims. There have been various studies suggesting that. Would either mark the outlet as State Sponsored outlet or an Unreliable Source. SpunkyGeek (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Unreliable for Middle East, generally reliable for other regions For instance, their coverage of RUSUKR often adheres to higher journalistic standards than many Western outlets. To be clear, this discussion is just about the English-language version, right? I know almost nothing about the original Arabic edition. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC) I've also made a somewhat bold, non-substantive change to RSP mentioning that Al Jazeera is state-owned, in line with the descriptions of other outlets like Deutsche Welle. Most people not familiar with the Middle East (and Al Jazeera is increasingly used for worldwide topics) don't know that. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Generally unreliable for the Israel-Palestine conflict. Al Jazeera never publishes corrections of any sort and frequently publishes controversial articles without any bylined authors. These and other practices make Al Jazeera one of the least reliable regular sources for any issue where accountable news organizations can be expected to weigh in, and it should never be used where accountable sources are available. Aside from that, here are three things I noticed today: Al Jazeera claimed today that "the number of those deliberately targeted and killed in Gaza has now reached 60 journalists and photographers since October 7, 2023". No evidence has ever been provided for the claim that Israel targets journalists deliberately, or that they are more likely to be killed in the current war than members of any other profession. Included in their list of recent targetings is Ayat Khaddoura, a voice-over artist and Instagram influencer who has never worked as a journalist except for a two-week college internship in October 2019 (when she provided voice-over for the dooz.ps YouTube channel). Today called Benny Gantz "opposition leader" even though he is currently in government and, even before that, was not the opposition leader, who is and was Yair Lapid. Today described Zvi Greenspan, an American tourist walking in Jerusalem, as an "Israeli settler". Also in this article, leaving aside the overall narrative of the confrontation, "she pushed back" equals, she stabbed him twice in the neck with a curved knife, and "Shorouq is delicate and cannot harm an animal" means, she posted her violent fantasies on Facebook in the days before the attack. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Israel killed journalists, including Al Jazeera's. That's a fact No mention of "opposition leader" in that live blog. All settlers are "tourists". Basically, this is another "I simply don't like it" !vote. M.Bitton (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC) AJ does not only report on the AI conflict. The current entry says "Some editors say" for a reason (slightly different wording but similar background for Amnesty). An RFC will be required to show that there is a consensus among editors for something else, "many editors" for example, or a "warning" which will merely be used to argue against AJ reporting at every turn. Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC) I agree, I think adding a warning or "additional considerations" is relevant, but with the specifics of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I don't know if it's reliable or not in other areas (haven't really consumed Al-Jazeera for other information). Of course it will be used to argue against AJ reporting (specifically on contentious topics within the AI conflict), but if AJ reports incorrect (or at least unknown) information as a fact, then arguing against AJ reporting is rather valid unfortunately. Bar Harel (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Comment. Making honest mistakes and correcting them is one thing. But publishing lies to promote a political case (that is what had happened here) is something entirely different. So, yes, I agree with the original posting on the top of the thread: not only this source is biased, but it is also not particularly reliable, at least based on the example provided. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Just to clarify, AJ is definitely a biased source, which is not a problem per se. We can use biased sources. But the problem in this specific example is that they widely published incorrect or at least strongly exaggerated claims to support their bias. I think this is rather problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC) So, I am saying this is a generally unreliable source for factual information about the Arab-Israeli conflict - at least based on the example provided. It does not mean it can not be used in this area. And it well could be an RS on other subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC) RSN is not the appropriate venue in which to wage the geopolitical battle de-jour. AJ is generally reliable, that doesn't mean that they're sacred or infallible... It means that they're generally reliable. The generally agreed upon point is that there has never been either a long form journalistic or academic article without a single error (even if those errors can only be determined in hindsight) in the history of the world. Perfection is not the standard, generally reliable is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC) So that is why news sources send corrections [39][40]. In this case for example, not only corrections are not sent, but there's more and more one-sided reporting [41], without any factual checks on other claims. When a news agency reports an "investigation" on one side, but doesn't investigate different claims while reporting them as truth, the reliability becomes questionable. Bar Harel (talk) 03:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC) No it doesn't... You're bludgeoning and abandoning impartiality. Stop. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC) To be fair, after I raised BLUDGEON Bharel committed to not responding anymore and has kept that up, so lets chalk that up to being unfamiliar with our processes and let it go. nableezy - 16:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC) That is my mistake, I did not see that you had already admonished them for that. Did not mean to dogpile. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Chill out a bit. Unless there is a lot of context about OP that I’m not aware of, that was slightly out of line. If this does go to RfC, it won't be just about ARBPIA. OP makes a valid point about three years having passed. A lot has happened in the world since then. On RUSUKR talk pages, where even the most partisan editors usually have little personal stake, we are generally very civil to each other, at least superficially. I don’t really want to see AJ go yellow on the list. But I’d be willing to support stronger disclaimers about the Middle East. If I can make time, I want to examine, in detail, their coverage of Yemen and other non-Israel-related regional conflict zones. Lastly, do you really expect Qatari state-owned media to be impartial about Hamas? I don't think anyone else does. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC) It is absurd that people are attempting to redefine reliability and npov as "agrees with the sources I like" and "agrees with the POV I espouse". Al-Jazeera is widely cited among other reliable sources, they are one of the very few press agencies that even has reporters in Gaza, and they make corrections as needed. And it is absurd that sources that peddled claims that were never retracted despite the evidence (eg this) are continued to be used without question, but one of the very few Arab-based sources is repeatedly challenged. Al-Jazeera remains a reliable news source with a reputation for fact-checking and it remains widely cited in other sources, the entirety of the complaint is a dislike of their reporting. nableezy - 17:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC) So according to you, the factual issues provided here are a "dislike of their reporting", and their biased inaccuracies are because they "don't agree with my view" and with the rest of the views on this board? Giving examples that other unreliable sources exist, does not make Al-Jazeera reliable. Bar Harel (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Dont believe I said that, no. Also, please see WP:BLUDGEON. You have now responded to everybody who has disagreed with you. nableezy - 03:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC) I apologize. You have said that the entirety of my complaint is a dislike of their reporting, and that AJ-Arabic has that notice but the report is not on AJ-Arabic. I will refrain from WP:BLUDGEON. Bar Harel (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Unless anybody can demonstrate that this is a systematic issue with Al Jazeera's English language coverage of this conflict, then I don't think anything should change for now. I agree with the RSP warning that Al-Jazeera Arabic is more biased than the English-language coverage, which is endorsed by the BBC [42]: Al Jazeera English is known to audiences worldwide for its varied coverage, which often sheds light on underreported stories. But its reporting - which only occasionally hints at the affiliations of its Qatari owners - comes in stark contrast to Al Jazeera Arabic. AJA's obvious stance on key regional crises and rivalries heavily colours its output. Its friendly coverage of Islamist groups - particularly favouring those aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood - came to the fore particularly with the 2011 uprisings in the region. Some of its correspondents have adopted a still harder line. In 2015, prominent anchor Ahmed Mansour offered a sympathetic account of the activities of al-Qaeda's Syria affiliate in a lengthy interview with its leader. Since a major rift between Gulf states erupted in 2017, AJA's coverage has also shifted closer to Iran. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC) I do think we might want to distinguish between Al-Jazeera English and Al-Jazeera Arabic, if the sources make that distinction. --Aquillion (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC) We already do. From RSP: Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict nableezy - 22:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Some editors and dubious sources also accuse the BBC of taking sides. M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Unfortunately, I don't even know Arabic. This entire report showing reliability issues is about Al-Jazeera in English. Bar Harel (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Just a reminder this board is for discussing the reliability of sources, it's not for discussing other editors or their possible motives. Other boards are available if those discussions are to take place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Generally reliable. I don't see anything here that would suggest that Al Jazeera (English and Arabic) is not generally reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Generally reliable by our standards. Also, the demands of NPOV require us to use sources that provide a variety of viewpoints on contentious subjects. Note that a large number of Israeli news sources are used all the time, even some in the extreme right wing, and some balance is needed. Zerotalk 23:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC) There's a difference between a different viewpoint, and a problem with inaccuracies as written here. We have plenty of news sources on the RS board, showing a variety of opinions. When the news source goes beyond just showing an opinion, to a point where it publishes inaccurate information in what looks like an attempt to garner political influence, it is marked with "additional considerations apply". It is even more problematic when the mistakes were never corrected. Bar Harel (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Also don't see anything that would make Al Jazeera less reliable here, especially since we already have the note about bias regarding Israel. This is a pretty reasonable case for bias, but interpreting ambiguous facts in an uncharitable way for Israel is not a case for unreliability as to what the facts are. Loki (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC) We note the bias particularly in AJ-Arabic. I don't even know Arabic. This is Al-Jazeera in English. Interpreting ambiguous data is fine, but there is no notion of ambiguity, unlike the majority of other reliable sources. There's a notion that the interpretation is the sole truth, and is provided as fact. Even when some other sources realized that they reported without much fact checking, they sent corrections as a reliable source does.[43] Al-Jazeera is giving here a prime example of what a reliable source is not supposed to do. Bar Harel (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Generally unreliable. The fake news they promoted to drive street demonstrations on the hospital explosion is not an isolated incident. As Karim Pourhamzavi and Philip Pherguson point out in this media research publication: "The results indicate that, on foreign policy issues which the Qatari elite regards as particularly important, the network promotes the perspectives of the state. The relationship between the Qatari state and Al-Jazeera also constrains the network's independence and objectivity". On anything the Qatari state is involved with, the Al-Jazeera distorts to fit the state view. It is the same as RT (TV network). Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC) That paper is specifically about Al Jazeera Arabic. nableezy - 12:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Generally reliable of course. This discussion is obviously born out of Al Jazeera's offering of a contrarian position to that of Western media in the current, ongoing conflict - when it is actually an especially good thing for NPOV and the world to have a range of sources. This isn't a 'the nail that sticks out must get hammered down'-type situation. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Generally unreliable That what's Arab governments says about Al Jazeera: Egypt blocks 21 websites for 'terrorism' and 'fake news' - Egypt has banned 21 websites, including the main website of Qatar-based Al Jazeera television and prominent local independent news site Mada Masr, accusing them of supporting terrorism and spreading false news. Al Jazeera blocked by Saudi Arabia, Qatar blames fake news - Al Jazeera has been blocked in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Egypt arrests Al-Jazeera producer on fake news charge - Hussein was being held on charges of “incitement against state institutions and broadcasting false news with the aim of spreading chaos.” Why Malaysia Is Angry With an Al Jazeera Documentary on Undocumented Migrants - The Malaysian government reacted very strongly to the allegations, calling them baseless and sought an apology from the Qatari TV news network. Aljazeera spreads fake news over Al Arabiya UK operations Ovedc (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Qatar diplomatic crisis much? Saudi Arabia and Egypt, among other countries, had a major conflict with Qatar that included the demand to close Al Jazeera. Plus the Malaysian government pushing back against criticism... starship.paint (RUN) 13:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC) What's that got to do with the reliability of Al Jazeera? M.Bitton (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Lol, did somebody really cite the [Committe to Protect Journalists saying that Egypt (that bastion of an honest and free press) arrested an al-Jazeera reporter on saying “Egyptian authorities are waging a systematic campaign against Al-Jazeera, consisting of arbitrary arrest, censorship, and systematic harassment,” said Sherif Mansour, CPJ’s Middle East and North Africa program coordinator. “Egypt must release Mahmoud Hussein immediately and ends its crackdown on the press.” as evidence that al-Jazeera is unreliable? Wild lol. nableezy - 13:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC) This is not a formal RFC, "!votes" are unnecessary, if someone wants to open an RFC to see if the consensus has changed, go ahead and do that but based on the above, I am not seeing much appetite for it.Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC) I'd agree, an RFC is likely to result in the exact same outcome as is currently listed at WP:RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Generally reliable does not mean always reliable. The evidence shown is neither voluminous enough or strong enough to degrade the general rating of this source, given the murkiness that comes with war. starship.paint (RUN) 13:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Interesting, 3/3 (6/6 now) Hebrew Wikipedia editors having a similar opinion? starship.paint (RUN) 14:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Comment on the reliability of the source, not other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Idk, they have a point, this is just turning into a parade of pro Israeli editors asserting generally unreliable. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Maybe but any disruptive editting can be reported elsewhere. Adding fuel to a fire doesn't help anyone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC) @ActivelyDisinterested: - within the last two weeks, an experienced and persistent sockmaster [44] [45] [46] improperly canvassed over 190 editors [47] to an AFD in this topic area. As a result I am left more suspicious than usual. There's even a suspected sockpuppet who participated below, I hope that this suspicion is false, of course. starship.paint (RUN) 00:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC) I'd hazard a guess that this thread has attracted some sleepers, but this is neither WP:SPI or WP:ANI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Generally Reliable with Conditional Notes: Per [48] there "Mixed for factual reporting due to failed fact checks that were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias that favors Qatar." Al-Jazeera is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for Due to direct ownership by Qatar and extreme editorial bias , including being subject to Qatari laws that bar any criticism on the government. It should be considered a partisan source in topics related to Qatar, The Arab/Israeli conflict, and Minorities of India, and its statements should be attributed in such cases. Editors may on occasion wish to use wording more neutral than that used by Al-Jazeera in topics related to these areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marokwitz (talk • contribs) Not certain but I think we don't actually use MBFC for RS assessments. Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC) We do not, it is generally unreliable for being self-published. nableezy - 15:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC) If we used MBFC, most of the western media outlets would qualify as highly unreliable for certain subjects (that you can guess). M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC) I’m not sure why minorities in India is mentioned here. There don’t seem to be any reports of unreliability on this topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC) @Bobfrombrockley A quick search on Google shows that India also bans them from time to time on reliability issues. Not sure why minorities specifically, but they seem to get banned on and off from a large amount of countries. Bar Harel (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC) India has been giving Wikipedia grief over maps too. The reason is that the Indian government makes maps showing de facto foreign control over territories it claims illegal. We shouldn't be downgrading Al Jazeera because it uses maps that accurately reflect reality. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC) @Hemiauchenia Interesting, I didn't know that, thanks. Regarding specifically the accuracy of Al-Jazeera maps, it was actually one of the complaints in this report up top. Bar Harel (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Actually I was somewhat wrong reading the Time article. In that case, Al Jazeera was banned for making the minor mistake of forgetting to include the Andaman Islands, and other minor islands and the somewhat more serious omission of the disputed borders in Kashmir in a handful of 2014 maps. Wikipedia has actually been threatened by the Indian government over maps that accurately depict the borders though. I don't think this a serious reason to dispute the reliability of its reporting. This sensitivity regarding maps is more to do with the Indian government rather than Al Jazeera. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure if it's only India. I can check that, but the Hebron map I've linked above seems to be inaccurate, and from a quick look, I found some more map infographics, where the British Mandate is set at 1917 (before it existed) and the 1948-1967 section, where the "Palestinian Control" of the West Bank, was actually under Jordan (PA did not exist at the time). Bar Harel (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Clarifying my statement regarding Al-Jazeera being unreliable on India minorities related matters, specifically Hindu/Muslim. In one example, on November 6th, 2017, Al Jazeera published an article titled “The forgotten massacre that ignited the Kashmir dispute,” claiming that thousands of Muslims were killed in Jammu by paramilitary forces under Dogra ruler Hari Singh's command. However, the picture accompanying the article was misleadingly taken from an unrelated event, depicting a family from Amritsar relocating to Lahore, having no connection to Jammu and Kashmir. . See also [49] and [50] Marokwitz (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This source gives another view and mentions the fact that India also banned India: The Modi Question (for the same reasons). M.Bitton (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Generally unreliable. Qatari state-propaganda. At this point no different than RT for Russia-related news.Dovidroth (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Generally Unreliable Pertaining to Arab-Israeli conflict AJ (and especially their video outlet AJ+) let’s some wildly dubious, biased, and - at times - manipulative - reporting slip through the cracks far more often than any media observer would feel comfortable with. In my experience it is often subtle and doesn’t show steady consistency, so it’s very hard to call this and claim they are generally unreliable, as opposed to occasionally unreliable (also whether in general nor just on certain subjects) Doing more research on my end before I cast any final opinion on this, but submitting this report for editor review/consideration in terms of AJ bias/reliability: https://www.arab-reform.net/publication/framing-whats-breaking-empirical-analysis-of-al-jazeera-and-al-arabiya-twitter-coverage-of-gaza-israel-conflict/ Mistamystery (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Generally unreliable. Arab countries, and other non-"western" countries have been toying and influencing this network according to their interests, banning and un-banning again and again, while demanding the network to improve the bias towards them. This network cannot be trusted and is not a reliable source. Few examples: Robert Booth. "WikiLeaks cables claim al-Jazeera changed coverage to suit Qatari foreign policy". The Guardian. Retrieved October 25, 2023. Bangladesh: David Bergman and Tasneem Khalil (22 Mar 2019). "Bangladesh blocks access to Al Jazeera news website". Al Jazeera. Retrieved October 25, 2023. Bahrain: "Why did Bahrain ban Al Jazeera from the GCC summit?". Https. Retrieved October 25, 2023. Egypt:"Al Jazeera slams naming of its journalists on Egypt 'terror' list". Al Jazeera. 25 Jul 2023. Retrieved October 25, 2023. Iraq: "Iraq shuts down Al Jazeera Baghdad bureau". Al Jazeera. 27 Apr 2016. Retrieved October 25, 2023. Kuwait: Ciar Byrne. "Kuwait shuts down al-Jazeera bureau". The Guardian. Retrieved October 25, 2023. Morocco: "Morocco bars al-Jazeera for 'unfair' coverage". The Guardian. Retrieved October 25, 2023. Saudi Arabia: "Saudi Arabia bans Al Jazeera channels in hotels". Al Jazeera. 9 Jun 2017. Retrieved October 25, 2023. Sudan: "Sudan bans al-Jazeera as pro-democracy demonstrations continue". The Guardian. Retrieved October 25, 2023. and the list goes on an on... TaBaZzz (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Youve given a list of repressive regimes banning a press agency and are using that as evidence that the press agency is unreliable? This is getting surreal tbh. nableezy - 19:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Exactly. If that's the standard, I guess we'd have to deprecate every news organization that Trump accuses of "FAKE NEWS!!!!. al-Jazeera is appropriately classified at RSP as a generally reliable newsorg with appropriate notes. Banks Irk (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC) oddly enough, they are even citing al-Jazeera as the agency reporting that they were banned. Guess they reliable for that news? nableezy - 19:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC) When noting "western world" sources, they are dismissed as biased. When noting repressive regimes toying on and off with AJ, they are dismissed. When citing Al-Jazeera itself, it is dismissed as well. So nothing is true for you? isn't there any truth somewhere, or would it be you to claim to be bearer of truth? TaBaZzz (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC) If anything, what you cited above proves the exact opposite of what you're claiming. M.Bitton (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Their self proclamation proves they are part of the interest and bias game themselves. Not a reliable source. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC) i suggest you read what has been said about the perceived bias and its irrelevance to the reliability assessment. M.Bitton (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC) How does it do that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Being a toy in the interests of (repressive) governments is by definition being unreliable. Cherry-picking information is misleading the audiance. And being misleading is being unreliable. TaBaZzz (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Nope, being unreliable has a specific definition that does not apply to it. M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC) From Questionable sources: expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist - YES. as was shown by across this talk page. promotional in nature - YES. Paid by Qatar and toyed by its interest and other countries interests. sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - YES. They cherry-pick the information they publish in a way that mislead their audiance. questionable business practices - YES. Paid by Qatar and toyed by its interest and other countries interests. Therefore this network cannot be trusted and is not a reliable source. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC) "Cherry-picking information is misleading the audiance." does that apply to this discussion as well? Because whether one agrees with it or not the OP here is full of cherry picking. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC) @Bharel: do you agree with TaBaZzz that "Cherry-picking information is misleading the audiance. And being misleading is being unreliable."? I imagine you strongly disagree given your argument's reliance on cherry picking information. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Reliable except in matters related to Arab-Israeli conflict The concern regarding Al-Jazeera appears to be towards is standpoint on the Arab-Israeli conflict. It should be considered generally reliable on other subjects but should be attributed in controversial/disputed topics. Ecrusized (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC) The only so-called "concerns" are about a perceived bias (by some editors), which even if proven to be factual would still have no impact whatsoever on the fact that Al Jazeera meets the normal requirements for reliable sources. M.Bitton (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Generally reliable. I recall back to the Iraq War beginning in 2003-2004 in which Al Jazeera was far more "reliable" than the U.S. media which was a cheering squad for the war. Since then I've relied on Al Jazeeera to give a more in-depth view of events in the Middle East than the often simplistic treatment we see in the U.S. media. Smallchief (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Generally reliable certainly as much as any other mainstream outlets are. I know I'd trust it at lot more than most other US mainstream sources on that topic. They might have a bias, but bias and unreliability are different things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Generally unreliable Almost by definition, a media outlet in a dictatorship, with virtually no freedom of press, is not reliable. It doesn't mean everything such media posts is false, but it makes in unreliable for any claim not reported elsewhere. As an additional comment, the WP:BLUDGEONING of some users in this very thread is concerning. Jeppiz (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Generally reliable They have a long history of accuracy and I don't see how we could mark them as unreliable for some slight occasional bias and slip ups. If we were to apply that same logic to the New York Times in regards to weapons of mass destruction or US outlets in general for believing a lot of what the US establishment wants them to believe that serves US foreign interests then how many US outlets would we mark as unreliable? TarnishedPathtalk 00:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Generally reliable Please don't bring nonsense political disputes to RSN. If we're going to be discussing the hospital as with the beginning of this section and OP, then where does the New York Times group putting out new analysis in the past 48 hours saying the explosive device came from the direction of Israel fit into things? It's precisely because of this evolution of new information over an ongoing event that previously considered reliable sources should not be brought here until after an event. Otherwise we'd be having a discussion as well right after Shireen Abu Akleh's murder where, if Al Jazeera said Israel was responsible, that they're unreliable because of that reporting. And, well, we know how that turned out. Hence why current events are not something that should be brought to RSN. SilverserenC 00:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Generally reliable It is a work that gets embroiled in political issues but its not the one creating the drama around, it is simply a matter of being a respected paper from the Middle East where there is a lot of politics at play. It tries to maintain itself above said conflicts. --Masem (t) 01:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Generally unreliable with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict - Per the points that have been made. Way too partial to Hamas-controlled sources here without correction. -- Veggies (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Once again for those missing the memo, partiality is unrelated to reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Of course it is—are you kidding? That's why we've deprecated sources like Sputnik and RT. They're singularly deferential to a certain point of view and divorced completely from reality. I'm not arguing that Al-Jazeera should be deprecated. Simply that, as regards the Arab-Israeli conflict, they're demonstrably unreliable. -- Veggies (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC) When you have demonstrated that, please let me know. Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Generally reliable but could more strongly state the additional considerations applying to coverage of Israel-Palestine and of Saudi-Qatar conflict. Worth noting that the former includes the global spillover of the conflict in terms of Israel-related antisemitism: Al Jazeera Investigations documentaries about alleged an Israel lobby in the U.K. have been condemned as misleading and even antisemitic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Comment To all the editors bold voting, and to reiterate Selfstudier earlier comment, this is a discussion not an RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Comment: As pointed by some editors above, this is a discussion not an RfC. Al-Jazeera is a very popular Arab media outlet and generally reliable in news coverage, including in topics related to Israel-Palestine conflict. Al-Jazeera is regularly cited in other global media outlets as well as academic publications. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC) This should probably be an RfC... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC) I think this discussion should be read as an additional substantial discussion which should be logged and linked in the third column at RSP, with the fourth column updated to 2023. So far, it clearly affirms previous consensus, but it might be sensible for an editor to tighten up the additional considerations mentioned in the final column at RSP. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC) to tighten up the additional considerations mentioned in the final column at RSP "Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict." seems fine to me. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Isn't it high time that Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic were treated as the extremely distinct sources that they actually are? Having a blended entry for both is just a source of confusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC) When a network gets asked by a western governments to "tone it down" (euphemism for self-censorship), you can rest assured that whatever the network is doing is right. M.Bitton (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Generally reliable and any mistakes or blatantly biased reporting coming from AJ are individual cases that correspond with frequency occurring in any other reliable source including the Washington Post or the New York Times.Makeandtoss (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Generally reliable Much has been made about the reporting of the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital explosion and RS have been largely believing the IDF explanation of a Palestinian rocket. Only the recent NYTimes analysis indicates that the Palestinian rocket blew up two miles from the hospital and wasn't the cause. The cause is unknown. We shouldn't take the word of either side in the war and the mainstream press likely got it wrong.[51] O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Comment. I think it's clear that AJ has a bias and that it's influenced by the government of Qatar [52], its owner, one of the most repressive states on Earth and a friend of Hamas. On the other hand, I don't see many examples of the actual lack of reliability, which is the main question here. Their treatment of the Al-Ahli hospital strike indeed raises questions. They automatically accused Israel in the live feed [53]. Then they published an investigation that, while contradicting some of Israeli claims, does not accuse Israel of performing the strike. However, they haven't added any kind of disclaimer or note to the earlier coverage, which isn't supported even by their own investigation. I think that the RSP note should reflect this, perhaps advising against using their live updates. Alaexis¿question? 16:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC) I would say people should be cautious in using live updates and other breaking announcements in general, from any news source, per WP:RSBREAKING. No strong opinion on whether this should be emphasised on the RSP entry and no comment on anything else. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Comment: do we have research showing they are reliable with regards to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? There are the issues that we've brought here. There are plenty of more reliability issues in other countries where they banned and unbanned Al-Jazeera constantly. There's a Wikipedia page for controversies surrounding Al-Jazeera and its bias. Up until now, I haven't really seen sources that show that Al Jazeera is reliable with regards to the conflict. What are we basing the reliability on? I've searched, and found a single research article showing that Al-Jazeera viewers regard it as reliable, but that's not too helpful. I've seen research showing the bias and framing. I'd appreciate some research showing that it's reliable. Bar Harel (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC) It is GR per prior discussions and the evidence presented in those except for "some editors" who think it isn't with regards to the IP conflict. If the question was being asked about the Jerusalem Post, there would probably be a different "some editors" who would consider it unreliable as regards the IP conflict. Do you have RS evidence that AJ is generally unreliable? Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Never said AJ is generally unreliable, only presented problems with the English version about the IP conflict. I'll check the evidence in prior discussions. Bar Harel (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Alright, I'm a hard worker and accepted the challenge. I've read all of the past discussions in RSN - 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1, and came out quite frustrated. In the majority of them the reliability of Al Jazeera is disputed in one way or another, and in all of them (100%) the reason that Al-Jazeera is stated as a reliable source, is because "Al-Jazeera is a reliable source". That statement is sometimes given by blocked sockpuppets, sometimes given by users in this very conversation, reiterating "Al-Jazeera is a reliable source" or "widely regarded as a reliable source". There is only one reply presented with "evidence", and the sources they link to actually state that AJE fully adopted the Hamas humanitarian disaster framing and casualties’ strategy. It accepted without any questioning the Hamas causality figures and didn’t make any effort to investigate who were killed and wounded and under what circumstances.[54] (p.152), so even the very source presented actually questions the reliability regarding the conflict. I've searched the web even more, and like I said, found a single article showing that Al Jazeera viewers regard it as reliable [55], and even there, they show the limitations of the study: Only age and Al-Jazeera reliance directly predicted credibility of the network and Our results suggested that Al-Jazeera users judged the network as highly credible. This study did not directly explore whether westerners who have viewed Al-Jazeera would differ in their judgments of credibility from those viewers in the Arab world. If viewers of a network regard it as reliable, it does not mean a network is reliable. They probably wouldn't have viewed it otherwise. In fact-checking websites, I see Al-Jazeera all over the place, sometimes as reliable, sometimes as not, almost always biased in the conflict. If you don't believe me, read the past discussions yourself please. Bar Harel (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC) As a couple of people have already said, there is the option of a formal RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC) I think I will call for the move of a formal RFC. The more I search about it, the more I find that it is systematic and widely covered: The fiction they concocted - that Israeli snipers targeted Abu Akleh-suits Al Jazeera's general narrative and the one that the Qatar-owned broadcaster has been conveying about its veteran staffer in particular. To pepper the propaganda and make it even more internationally palatable, most reports of this nature highlight that Abu Akleh and her cohorts on the scene were wearing signs clearly marked "PRESS"on their protective vests. — Blum, Ruthie. 2022. “The Workings of the Palestinian Propaganda Machine.”[56] The more Al Jazeera courts controversy, the more attention it receives and the more viewers it attracts. This makes it doubtful that Al Jazeera genuinely wants to improve its reputation or alter what the public thinks of it — Zayani, M. (2008). Arab media, corporate communications, and public relations: the case of Al Jazeera. Asian Journal of Communication, 18(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292980802207074 Al-Jazeera framed their pictorial coverage in a manner that aligned with their governments' interests in the crisis. — Tayler J. The Faisal Factor. Atlantic Monthly (1993). 2004;294(4):41-43. Accessed October 29, 2023. Our research results suggest a significant difference in news framing between TOI and AJE and indicate that these differences are statistically significant. The textual and visual analyses substantiated the validity of assumptions of biased coverage and showed that the two transnational news media were clearly ethnocentric in their news reporting on both textual and visual levels. — DOUFESH, BELAL, and HOLGER BRIEL. “Ethnocentrism in Conflict News Coverage: A Multimodal Framing Analysis of the 2018 Gaza Protests in The Times of Israel and Al Jazeera.” International Journal of Communication (19328036) 15 (January 2021): 4230–51. The bias and reliability issues shown are in Al-Jazeera English. Bar Harel (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC) The first source you cite (p. 152) is from one chapter of the book on Al Jazeera; the chapter is called "An Israeli View" on AJE's coverage of the Gaza War (2008–2009). Though well-argued, its arguments are very much out of line with mainstream sources (like criticizing AJE's use of the term Israeli occupation as misleading because Israel withdrew). In the passage you quote, he doesn't only criticize Al Jazeera English, he also accuses human rights organizations, Palestinian, Israeli, and global, including, for example, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, as well as the UN, of being guilty of citing the false figures of Hamas, and criticizes the Goldstone report of being discredited and filled with fabricated facts, questionable testimonies, false accusations, and baseless conclusions and having already made up their mind even before the investigation started. These talking points are not accepted as true by mainstream experts. One of the footnotes it cites in support is NGO Monitor, a bad source. If you read the other chapters (including the "A Palestinian View" counterpoint) you'll find the overall report is rather positive about AJE, and this quoting is rather selective. Downgrading AJE would only create WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is our coverage. DFlhb (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Its worse than that, the first one is an opinion piece by Ruthie Blum, a non-expert in media or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And CNN likewise concluded Abu Akleh was intentionally targeted. The last one shows that Israeli and Arab news sources have different perspectives. Shocking development, but why would that mean only the Arab one should be removed? nableezy - 14:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Check the indentation (which is confusing due to bullet points); I'm referring to this source, quoted above as criticizing Al Jazeera English for adopting Hamas's so-called "casualties strategy". DFlhb (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC) @DFlhb I purposefully added that source, as it was used in the previous discussion "showing" the credibility of AJE. I quoted the Israeli view, as for some reason it was completely omitted, claiming AJ is reliable. Showing only the other parts of the report isn't necessarily adding credibility. Right now we have no claim in the RS page regarding the AJE bias, only about the arabic version, and consider it reliable for the IP conflict. If there are so many sources claiming there's bias in its reporting of the IP conflict, how can we ignore all of them? What do we base the reliability on? @Nableezy Remember, my suggestion was to add an additional consideration notice, specifically about the IP conflict. There are plenty of sources showing the AJE bias, some of them further claiming it is not reliable. I, and other editors, have added an endless amount of citations, sources and evidence. So far I haven't seen sources claiming it is accurate or neutral on the conflict, apart from people stating "AJ is reliable" endlessly. I thought we like citations. Instead of bashing every source I bring, how about we'll add some that say it is reliable? None of our prior 10 (!!!) discussions have that (except that one reply). Even this very discussion has dozens of sources claiming Al-Jazeera is biased, some claiming it is unreliable, but none showing anything that gives a shred of hope that I might be wrong. How can we bring a statement in 10 discussions spanning over multiple years, making decisions based on it, and not back it up with any source - by simply claiming it's the truth? Is this how Wikipedia works and I didn't get the memo? Look, I'm trying to stay as neutral as possible, but right now I'm facing with a huge amount of evidence to one side, and barely any to the other. I'm doing all the work searching for sources to both sides, and I'd appreciate the help. Replying "It's reliable" is not an argument, and honestly, so far it feels like an OR. If you're claiming why would that mean only the Arab one should be removed? then I agree with you - let's do it on both then. Times of Israel is probably biased towards... Israel, in the PI conflict. Bring relevant sources and we'll write it accordingly. Bar Harel (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC) From WP:OR "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC) let's do it on both then first of all, there is no reason to do such a thing for any of them and second, should we decide to apply it for whatever reason, then it will be done for every single source out there (there will be no cherry picking or baseless comparisons). M.Bitton (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC) I'm saying that we can't dismiss a source on the basis of allegations that are widely disputed by reliable sources (and that are also lobbed at the UN, HRW, Amnesty, and even "Israeli and global" human rights organizations). That chapter's whole point is to explore a partisan viewpoint. The rest of the book presents AJE as a proper journalistic outlet, which is our criteria for being "generally reliable". DFlhb (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC) @DFlhb I would have agreed with you and would have preferred to close this discussion, but there are 5 others that I've added, with some actual research done, showing AJE is biased (and the thread started with additional evidence for the unreliability + DOJ reference). Other editors also added sources. The allegations are not based on a single book's chapter, and atm we're stating the bias only exists on AJ Arabic.Bar Harel (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Israeli media, also traumatized by Hamas attack, become communicators of Israel’s message "But in wartime, Israeli media, like other components of Israeli society, set differences aside and rally behind the military leadership. Some critics who don’t are dubbed traitors. Coverage of the other side’s plight is kept to a bare minimum." Should we now caveat all Israeli media based on this? No, because there is a presumption of reliability for major newsorgs (WP:NEWSORG "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact"), that includes AJ unless there is conclusive evidence of unreliability or until there is a consensus of editors that it is unreliable, neither of which is evident at the moment. Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC) I haven't really seen sources that show that Al Jazeera is reliable with regards to the conflict. Not sure what you are looking for. Do we even have any sources that show that any particular news outlet is reliable with regard to the I/P conflict? Meanwhile Al Jazeera reporting is in line with others on major events [57] e.g. According to Israeli officials, at least 1,400 people were killed in the attacks on southern Israel on October 7 starship.paint (RUN) 01:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Al Jazeera, I noticed: promoted Jackson Hinkle (an RT contributor who is a North Korea supporter, denies the Douma chemical attack, the Uyghur genocide, the Bucha massacre, the fact that genes exist... you get the picture) as a reliable source (see here, timestamp 1:47). They also contributed to the spread of misinformation by claiming that a photo of a dead infant released by the Israelis was AI-generated (see here). That claim, too, was originally spread by Hinkle (see here, here), and they cite him in their video. VintageVernacular (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC) You mention two examples. The first, of "promoting" Hinkle, is them using a screenshot of a Hinkle tweet as B-roll footage to illustrate a video of a journalist debunking various claims. Hinkle's tweet is factually accurate, and the journalist never mentions Hinkle. They likely just looked for a popular tweet (that one had 10mil views) to illustrate a point. If we interpret that as promotion, we've about to declare a lot of news outlets unreliable. Your second example, "AI-generated", was from Al Jazeera Arabic, and it's in a tweet; we would never have used it for those two reasons. DFlhb (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Marked unreliable would be jumping the gun, I wouldn't have !voted that had this been an RfC. Currently I think it's yellow tier (in my books, that is). These incidents were just recent occurrences that worried me about their reliability, and I felt could use bringing up. Although I'd already been somewhat skeptical of them. But: why would a Twitter post by a news org marked reliable by WP not be a valid citation? Many news orgs publish good reports through social media, especially YouTube but sometimes Twitter as well. There's no reason to consider those unreliable simply because they're there instead of the news org's site. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC) I don't think it's a good sign that they used Hinkle's tweet in their "fact check" video there, but it's not quite "promoting". I think this supports the idea we might need more stringent phrasing of our caveats in relation to Israel/Palestine, but doesn't suggest they should be demoted from generally reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC) They actually cited him as some sort of reliable source on their website, which I didn't know about before, simply referring to him as "[an] American journalist [who] soon discovered that it was a fake photo" in this recent article for their Bosnian edition. Is there some kind of exception carved out here for Al Jazeera English? I'm aware their coverage is significantly different between languages. VintageVernacular (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC) This does not support the idea we might need more stringent phrasing of our caveats in relation to Israel/Palestine until there is an RFc, no matter how many times that is repeated, it remains "some editors".... Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean by "until there is an RfC". RSP says This list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere on Wikipedia. This discussion - the most in-depth here for a decade I think - doesn't need to be a formal RfC for it to be registered in the summary in RSP. It seems to me that there is something slightly more here than "some editors say it is partisan": about 50% of editors here are saying that "additional considerations" or "general unreliability" should apply to its I/P coverage? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Open an RFC, so that the matter is widely advertised. That was how it was done to begin with and the editors here can comment there, that will serve to quantify what "some editors" means and if that has changed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Why wouldn't they if his tweet happens to be factually accurate? Don't we do the same thing (i.e., judge sources in context) or are we now expecting the secondary sources to check with us first? M.Bitton (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC) His tweet about the supposedly AI-generated photo was not factually accurate, as several sources I linked showed quite thoroughly. VintageVernacular (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC) That's not the tweet that was used. M.Bitton (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC) It was used by AJ Arabic here, where they describe Hinkle as an "expert". Another source they cite there is an anonymous post on 4chan. VintageVernacular (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Apart from the fact that they (the secondary source) can describe him however they wish and their analysis seems accurate to me (that's my opinion, others can have a different one), that's not what is being discussed here (see the link given by the OP) and Al Jazeera Arabic is another subject. M.Bitton (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC) If you hold the opinion that a report citing repeat disinformation purveyors Jackson Hinkle, and 4chan, by a news org funded by a government with links to a major party in the war the report concerns, is accurate versus the multiple analyses by AI experts and fact checking websites... that's your right, too. But this is not in any way off-topic as you suggest. VintageVernacular (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Talking about a Tweet that wasn't mentioned by the OP and in Arabic to boot is definitely off-topic. Of course it's my right (I don't have to believe parti pris experts). Incidentally, the Al Jazeera Tweet is about online propaganda (they even mention someone who tried to pass himself off as an Al Jazeera employee). I guess, this is what happens (the price to pay) when an information blackout is created. M.Bitton (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC) If you had read my sources, you'd find that the company behind the AI detection tool (used by Hinkle) stated it was a false positive, and the creator of the puppy photo (which was reposted to 4chan by a self-proclaimed insider) stated that was the one that was the fake photo. Al Jazeera was unambiguously spreading misinformation. Even if they did so in Arabic, it is worth considering if only because they're owned by the same network; the fact that the exact same misinfo was posted to their Bosnian website indicates a possible wider issue. VintageVernacular (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Exactly. Anyone can make a photo a post it without context (like they did). Until proven otherwise, that photo is simply fake (to millions of people who have no reason to believe otherwise and every reason not to trust anything coming from the side that holds all the cards). Like I said, creating an information blackout comes with a price tag. M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Comment - Al Jazeera is an invaluable source for factual reporting, analysis, and political opinions coming from some segments of the Arab world. It is one of the best sources at our disposal for this critical region of the world. Any suggestion that Al Jazeera should be labeled "generally unreliable" is absurd to the point of suggesting POV pushing. Unless we want to just come out and explicitly state in our policies that Wikipedia is an explicit reflection of Western points of view, the war against non-Western points of view has got to come to an end. Going after Al Jazeera is a bridge too far, and I'm glad to see that many editors agree. Obviously it should not be taken at face value if it's "debunking" corruption or abuse allegations against the Qatari government. Other than that, it should be used as much as possible. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Again please keep your comment to the reliablity of the source, not other editors. If you believe other editors are behaving in a disruptive manner you have the option to report them to WP:ANI -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Marginally reliable. Unreliable in Israel-Palestine conflict Softlem (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC) References Reliable but should be only be used with a second source for the Israel-Palestine conflict and other Quatar involved middle eastern conflicts based on ownership. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC) For international, nonpolitical items I would say Reliable but for things on local Arab & Middle East politics and especially the Israel/Palestine conflict I would be extremely careful. There's a lot of reporting that says it's getting pushed or threatened with banning if it doesn't follow authoritarian party lines from some of the Islamic-Nationalist-dominated countries and the reporting on Israel&Palestine shows that it's failed to correct reported false information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by USNavelObservatory (talk • contribs) 00:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)blocked sock/arbpia 30/500 Reliable with conditions that being not to use it for Qatari-government domestic issues. Given the nature of Israel Palestine, I'd be careful with that as well. Anything outside of it though is generally good in my view. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC) -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- The following was moved here from a duplicate section. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Al Jazeera is a Qatari-funded news organization which shows clear bias. I move to have them deprecated as a reliable news source Pburkart (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC) Examples of unreliable reporting? Softlem (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC) There is literally already a discussion up above on reliability and the general consensus definitely doesn't seem in agreement with you. Also, as has to seemingly be pointed out over and over again on RSN, bias has nothing to do with reliability. SilverserenC 04:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC) Information suppression and WP:RECENT Al Jazeera keeps doing what it has been doing all along and is something that is literally relied on quite heavily for all the years inbetween the major conflict flare-ups, and the timing of when RFCs and discussions occur on it is very telling. The fact is that there are not enough alternative sources in places like Gaza and Al Jazeera is the best we have, most certainly in the English language. It would be "easy" and "comfortable" for people to switch I feel, if suddenly Reuters and AP had the dozens/hundreds of boots on the ground in Gaza that it would take to be alternatives but this never happens even during the years in between the wars of Israel and Hamas. We need Al Jazeera to have as much English language information as we need to be usefully dealing with the subject in the English language Wikipedia, which is also relevant as it's the English language Wikipedia that is Wikipedia's "face" to the world at large generally. Al Jazeera English has repeatedly been awarded for its coverage in this highly contentious conflict area and I believe that is to their credit, they have already had the world's eyes scrutinize them quite heavily and the scrutiny has not abated. If there were true problems needing us to reduce our Al Jazeera usage, they would be writ large by other international sources because there have been those desperate to prove it for its entire existence. Sumstream (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Additional considerations apply/unreliable and non-independent for topics related to areas where the Qatari government has key interests - for example, the recent Men's World Cup and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Qatar is an autocratic state, and Al Jazeera lacks independence from that state; given this it would be unreasonable to consider it reliable and independent on topics that are considered key by that state. Evidence for this goes back decades; for example, look at this 2013 article by the BBC, which explains that the website is a standard bearer for the Islamist movement. BilledMammal (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC) That 2013 BBC article is specifically about Al Jazeera Arabic, which is editorially separate from Al Jazeera English. See: The battle over the media is a key factor in the struggle for power in Egypt and almost every Arabic language channel viewed as sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood has long since been shut down. and Only Al-Jazeera has continued to deliver the Muslim Brotherhood point of view in Arabic. which a 2019 BBC story noted is much more partisan than Al Jazeera English [58]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC) @BilledMammal: even if Al-Jazeera English was sympathetic to Islamists, that doesn't mean they are any more unreliable than a source that is sympathetic towards Zionists, or any other political group. See WP:POVSOURCE.VR talk 05:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC) generally reliable : According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. I will post more of my thoughts later. Very busy rn.Gsgdd (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Generally reliable, including on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Al-Jazeera is among the few news organizations with reporters on the ground interviewing witnesses etc. Also see list of List of awards awarded to Al Jazeera English. I want to remind everyone that it still has not been conclusively established who caused the Al-Ahli Hospital explosion.VR talk 05:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC) So it has not been conclusively established, except by Al Jazeera, which claimed without doubt, in multiple instances, and according to their "investigations" that one side caused it, per the exscripts brought above. Bar Harel (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Keep chewing on this solitary bone, this does not make AJ unreliable. Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Comment - Just a possible alternative -- a specific topic concern might do better to ask about adding a note in their RSP entry on that specific topic, not for a generic and broad "Generally reliable" vs "Unreliable". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Generally reliable including on the Israel Palestinian situation. This is amazing stuff, I have never seen so blatant an attempt to ban something for political reasons. I'm particularly impressed with the comment above which states that various Arab dictatorships (What's the difference between a dictator and a king? A crown.) banning Al Jazeera shows it is unreliable. The only consideration may be that it is unlikely to report fairly on the domestic politics of Qatar in the event of major political turmoil in that country, however its general record up to now is excellent, similar to a a major Western outlet such as the Times or BBC.Boynamedsue (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Support - unreliable + generally unreliable. This Qatar government-funded source has repeatedly demonstrated that they are not reliable. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Prove it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Is PCMag a reliable source?

What is the reliability of PCMag?

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

Equalwidth (C) 05:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

What context you have in mind? I use PCMag as a source for articles about old hardware/software from 1980s/1990s, in that case it is a reliable source. Are there some recent issues we should be aware of? General reliability questions like this aren't much helpful. Pavlor (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there an actual live issue? Where are you thinking of its use and how? - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Invalid question: This question needs a lot more context. Like David said, historically it was a very good source for computer information. Is it still a good source? Perhaps but in what context are you proposing/objecting to it's use. Please note that we should never start the discussion of a source with the RfC style options. That should be reserved for sources that have been discussed significantly in the past. Instead, for source that normally aren't discussed here the question should be raised with a specific use example. Springee (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• It depends on context of what specifically is being cited for what specific article content. One couldn't cite them for medical advice for example, and information in a 1991 article may have become outdated. And I'd really like a link to what prior discussion was not resolved so it needed to come to this RFC for conflict resolution. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• No consensus. From the gigantic banner which appears at the top of this page -- Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. This is not supposed to be some kind of official council where we decide which sources are "good" and "bad". jp×g🗯️ 23:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Signal

Yesterday, I saw in my news feed on my Android a Washington Post article about John Clauser, specifically about a Nobel Prize winner pivoted toward climate change denial. I was not familiar with the subject, and the article remains paywalled (naturally), so I took to Wikipedia to read about the subject. As expected, there is a section about Clauser's denial with the Post's article newly added, but I also noticed a footnote adjacent to it, which points to The Daily Signal. I thought, as editors, we were not to use The Daily Signal. Have I been incorrect? The source has been removed and can be added back in if this discussion finds for its reliability. FreeMediaKid$ 20:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The last discussion appears to be this one in archive 334. The general consensus of that discussion seems to be cautionary due to it's relationship to The Heritage Foundation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

As of yet, no user has reinserted the source, but it may be because I urged them to do so only "if this discussion deems it reliable." Reading the Post's article in archive.today to bypass its paywall (an administrator may need to redact this part of my comment if it is indeed the wrong thing to post), I was able to verify the material sourced, and The Daily Signal's piece, published in August, was remotely related to Mr. Clauser's denial, which he professed in November, anyway, so there is nothing to lose from deleting the citation or gain from adding it in. I still lean toward the understanding that The Daily Signal is at best no more reliable than an average think tank publication and publishes undue content. There are better conservative-leaning sources out there. FreeMediaKid$ 01:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• It always depends on context - of what specific piece is being cited for what specific WP content. See WP:RS, specifically WP:RSCONTEXT "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." And remember that while WP:V is an important policy, RS is a guideline and not a policy, so a page does not necessarily follow it. RS even says it "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Although WP:RSCONTEXT is true it doesn't hold for all situations. For instance WP:CIRCULAR sources will never be good, and reliable self-published sources can never be used in BLPs.
  Also WP:V states verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source, you would need a very good WP:IAR argument to ignore that, and if other editors disagree with your evaluation of a source a talk page consensus would be WP:LOCALCON. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

There is not an official Wikipedia council that dictates what sources are always good and what sources are always bad. You have to look at the context in which a source is used, fire up the ol' noggin, and think about it. jp×g🗯️ 23:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

1960s & 1970s sources for "Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group"

Are these sources too old to support a statement in Wikivoice in the lead of Kurds that "Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group"?

1. "Kurds" (1978). Encyclopedia Islamica, 2nd edition (current edition is 3rd).
2. J. Limbert. (1968). "The Origins and Appearance of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran." Iranian Studies [59]
3. C.E. Bosworth (1977). The Medieval History of Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia. [60]

These came up at an ongoing RFC at Talk:Kurds#RFC: Iranian ethnic group. I argued WP:AGEMATTERS (because 21st century sources are available) and another editor suggested taking it to RSN, so here I am. Thanks for your feedback. Levivich (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

As WP:AGEMATTERS says Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded.... Sources don't go off like milk, they get superseded by new knowledge. If new sources don't describe Kurds as an Iranian ethnic group, then they have been superseded, but if new sources don't contradict these sources them they are still RS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Interesting point. I think it's been superseded but in the RFC it seems not everyone agrees. One newer source seems to say it:

• Garnik Asatrian's Prolegomena to the Study of the Kurds (Iran and the Caucasus, 2009), p. 8: The ancient history of the Kurds, as in case of many other Iranian ethnic groups (Baluchis, etc.), can be reconstructed but in a very tentative and abstract form.

Others say something different:

• A Modern History of the Kurds (4th ed., I.B. Tauris, 2021) by David McDowall, pp. 8-9: It is doubtful that the Kurds form an ethnically coherent whole in the sense that they have a common ancestry.
• Sebastian Maisel's Kurds: An Encyclopedia of Life, Culture, and Society (ABC-Clio, 2018), p. xiii: The origins of the Kurds are contested, but for many they represent an indigenous group of upper Mesopotamia often described as the mountain people in the Zagros and Taurus. (The Zagros Mountains are in Iran; the Taurus Mountains are in Turkey.)
• Michael Eppel, A people without a state: the Kurds from the rise of Islam to the dawn of nationalism (University of Texas Press, 2016), pp. 4-5: The similarity between the signifiers Carduchians and Kurds and the geographic location of the Carduchian country have been the bases for the identification of Carduchians as ancient Kurds by scholars ... Other scholars have considered the Kurds to be descendants of the ancient Medes ... who remained in the mountains of Kurdistan and did not undergo “Iranization” ... Still other scholars ... have expressed doubts as to the identification of the Carduchians as forebears of the Kurds and reject the connection between the Kurds and the Medes ... emphasiz[ing] the connection between the Kurds and the Cyrtii (Kurti)...
• John Shoup's Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia (ABC-Clio, 2011), p. 159: ...the Kurdish people are thought to be descended from the Carduchii...An Iranian people by language, the Kurdish people are ethnically diverse due to intermarriage with other ethnic groups...
• Denise Natali, The Kurds and the State: Evolving National Identity in Iraq, Turkey, and Iran (Syracuse University Press, 2005), p. xvii: Although some Kurds trace Kurdish civilization to the seventh millenium, the majority date their origins to the Median Empire in the sixth century B.C. ... [scholars] emphasize the uniqueness of Kurdish identity ... Kurds are Kurds because they are not Arabs, Persians, or Turks.

So is that superseded? I guess the question is, in determining what to say in wikivoice, should the 1960s and 1970s works be given equal weight to the 21st-century works? Or less weight? Or more weight? Levivich (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

In case where there is disagreement between academic sources, as seems to be the case here, it might be best to describe that disagreement in the article. Not all details have a single clear definition. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This. Can attribute stuff (author, date) too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

WhatCulture

Years ago, I started a thread for WhatCulture, a low-quality entertainment website that should be written off as unreliable. I made the same point then in seeking to build a solid consensus about its usability, and if memory serves, I was also asked whether I favored deprecating it, and perhaps also blacklisting it. I never responded, which I regret. Anyway, it was unanimously declared unreliable, a verdict I stand by.

A bit has changed since the 2020 discussion. In 2022, Future plc ignominiously acquired WhatCulture. "Ignominiously" is an understatement, considering that Future is behind many, generally high-quality publications. A reader familiar with the company and its publications should thus be assured of the quality of this website's content. Instead, what one gets is still the same old farmed content whose authors attempt little, if any, serious journalism and which is comparable in contemptible ways to what one sees from YouTube channels like WatchMojo, which is not listed at WP:RSP, but has been found useless by WikiProject Video games and previously here on the RSN. A word of note—and it still surprises me—is that at least one author, as was brought to light in this discussion, apparently has worked for other websites (though I could not verify whether they are the same person). On top of that, the policy that "You do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications" seems to have disappeared in mid-2023—the good part. The bad part is that it still exists in a different flavor: "Experience isn't necessary, but it helps."

All things considered, WhatCulture has been, and still is, a classic stereotype of McJournalism. It prioritizes article quantity over quality, utilizes clickbait, and at the expense of that seeks to maximize article views and profits. It is not another New York Post Metro, or The History Channel, but the equivalent of the Daily Mail, The Sun, and other sources of information that we wish did not appear in our search results. I suggest we deprecate it. It may also be prudent to put an edit filter over the source since I suspect it has been inserted into articles by users either engaged in spam or not knowing Wikipedia's concept of reliability. FreeMediaKid$ 01:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

No disagreement from me that this is a trash source. For anyone interested it's currently used in ~850 articles.[61] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Appears problematic. However, I do not think it is the equivalent of the Daily mail or the Sun since its scope and focus is different. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

GNIS regurgitators

background Project:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 357#RfC: GNIS and Project:Reliability of GNIS data

• Sprekelsville, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Sprekelsville, California — "Original Citation: Occidental College. Accessed from classic.oxy.edu on 15 December 2005"
• http://classic.oxy.edu at the Wayback Machine (archived 2005-12-15)
• Stockton, Arizona (AfD discussion)

Failing the Sprekelsville test:

• https://california.hometownlocator.com/ca/el-dorado/sprekelsville.cfm

Failing the Stockton test:

• https://roadsidethoughts.com/az/stockton-xx-mohave-profile.htm — The non-existent people at an uninhabited former mine from the 1890s don't self-identify as "Stocktonians".

The subject of GNIS regurgitators has come up again at Alden, Colorado (AfD discussion). Dlthewave has mentioned these before; and hometownlocator and roadsidethoughts are two of the frequently used ones, cited as sources to — ironically — bolster or replace the known-unreliable GNIS. roadsidethoughts in particular makes it very clear that it is a GNIS regurgitator, and they all have all of the problems associated with the underlying GNIS data.

Aside: The Sprekelsville Test is quite useful in other ways. There is a Spreckels family in California associated with a lot of stuff, historically, some of which is linked from that page. But that is Spreckels, with a c. On the presumption that someone from Occidental College did say something about the Spreckels, even though that doesn't pan out when one consults the Wayback Machine's archive, the fact that they got a mis-spelling and the site of the El Dorado Limestone Mine on Shingle Mine Road by Deer Creek south-west of Shingle Springs, California into the GNIS by a wholly wrong name in 2005 should be telling us that the GNIS, which famously mangled names for EBCDIC purposes anyway, is unreliable for even names.

So we really should have something in the Reliable Sources lists that points out that the GNIS regurgitators are just as bad as using the GNIS directly — which effectively one is as it's all machine-generated from the GNIS computerized records.

Uncle G (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; in fact (as creator of the Sprekelsville PROD) I wouldn't be averse to a "generally unreliable" evaluation of GNIS, RoadsideThoughts, and HometownLocator (and the like) all around. The latter sites are SEO garbage, and I'm appalled by the number of United States geographic articles sourced only to them (see my recent PROD nominations for examples). And some of these sites appear to get data from Wikipedia, creating an Ouroboros of trivial (if not patently false) geographic misinformation. This is as much a WP:GEOLAND issue as it is a reliable sources issue, but if we can get sources declared unreliable for geographic purposes, that's a step in the right direction. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete - These aggregators are worse than the databases they draw from because the sources are unclear and there's no apparent effort to fact-check or maintain accuracy as required by WP:RS, they're simply duplicating the data along with all errors. I can't imagine a situation where an aggregator is a better source than readily-available GNIS or census records. –dlthewave ☎ 14:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

GNIS is really not that bad, you just have to use your head a little. Normally I wouldn't comment on a thread like this, but I happen to specifically climb mountains using GNIS quadrangles of Shingle Springs, and they're fine for all my own purposes. I agree that sources which obviously procedurally aggregate and republish GNIS data are no more accurate than GNIS itself, though. jp×g🗯️ 23:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Boyd Petersen book review

Boyd Petersen provided a book review of Martha Beck's "Leaving the Saints" book (in which accuses her father Hugh Nibley of sexual abuse). The book review appears in a the Journal of Mormon History (JMH), an independent academic article that has generally been considered a reliable source. The review had been used to support the inclusion in the Hugh Nibley article of the statement, "Boyd Petersen, Nibley's biographer and son-in-law, also rejected Beck's claims. In his response to Leaving the Saints, he argues that the book contains other inconsistencies and instances of hyperbole", but the inclusion has been challenged arguing that it does not meet WP:RS due to Petersen's relation to Hugh Nibley. Can the book review in JMH be used as a reliable source for this statement in the article? FyzixFighter (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• There are a lot of sourcing issues in that article, many with the same problems as this review. This source, and many others in the article, are from LDS apologetics publishers and publications which are problematic in a BLP given their lack of true independence. Apart from the RS questions, in this case the two citations to reviews seem undue. It is probably enough to say that other close family members disputed the claims without the exposition. Banks Irk (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by BLP issue - Nibley is dead? Also, this source (Journal of Mormon History) is not an LDS apologetic publication but an independent (not associated with the LDS Church or any of its education bodies like BYU) academic journal by the Mormon History Association, whose member include those who reject Mormonism. If this were BYU Studies, FAIR, or Interpreter, then I would agree regarding "true independence" and there should be more pause. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

His daughter isn't dead. The BLP standards apply to statements about living persons, even in other articles. Banks Irk (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Petersen is alive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• User:FyzixFighter - it seems a semi-reasonable RS for that line covering this part of reaction to her book. It would be more solid support for a line if phrased that there was a book review thus being RS for fact of there being a review and attribution to it being his own words, e.g. "In a book review, Nibley's biographer and son-in-law Boyd Petersen rejected Beck's claims and argued that the book contains 'persistent hyperbolic assertions and outright distortions of fact' ". Or cite to a mention in a third party covering the controversy which says something about the Boyd Petersen book review and convey how they characterise it. e.g. the NY Times, although third party coverage might itself be giving a POV rather than just factual reporting. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  To call it a review so as to suggest some disinterested dispassionate analysis is a big stretch. He's reviewing is as a family member disputing claims on the basis of his personal experience and relationship with the subject. Banks Irk (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• @FyzixFighter: is there a particular reason you opened this without noting so in the talk page discussion Talk:Hugh Nibley#Peterson or pinging me? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

911truth.org

Not a reliable source, so are any of these uses justified?[62] Eg], for Henry Poole (technologist), where it is the only reference, it's used for "He is a signatory to the 9/11 Truth Statement." Doug Weller talk 12:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think this runs afoul of both WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS, even if it were a reliable source. Essentially this is the organization saying, "These are our members." Banks Irk (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Not to mention WP:DUE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Yup… see: WP:VNOT. There are several other policies and guidelines that indicate that this information should not be included. And if we don’t include the information, there is no reason to worry about whether the source reliably supports it. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

DraftHistory.com

A significant number of the 303 articles in the category Category:Lists_of_National_Football_League_draftees_by_college_football_team are sourced only to this website, which appears to be the work of a single person. It does however appear to have existed for 23 years, so that's one thing, and I'm sure there's a good chance it may be accurate. So the question is - is this good enough, and does an alternative reliable source exist for these statistical articles? Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks WP:SELFPUBLISHed. If RSes cite it or the author is an expert maybe its reliable but if not its just a wp:fansite Softlem (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Definitely a WP:SPS. The site and his Twitter feed are frequently cited in other questionable sites (rather than doing their own research and reporting), which might indicate some recognition of expertise, but he's never been independently published, so he's not a WP:SME. Moreover, self-published sources, even by experts at are not to be used in BLPs. Banks Irk (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

If he could be shown to have been published by independent reliable sources then he would be usable in standard articles, but WP:BLPSPS/WP:SPS are quite clear Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• So, as per my question, what do we do about the 250+ articles only sourced to this site? Is there anyone with more knowledge of the subject that could suggest an alternative source? Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Notify the project, remove the references and add {{unreferenced BLP}}, or if just notify the project their quite active. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

NGO Freedom House citing Falun Gong sources (Epoch Times, etc.)

First, a bit of context: The Falun Gong is a new religious movement centered around China-born Li Hongzhi. It is headquartered out of a compound called Dragon Springs in Deer Park, New York, where Li Hongzhi also lives. For more on the extremely controversial Falun Gong and its various media arms, like the conspiracy/Qanon superspreader The Epoch Times, here's a very recent article from NBC News on the whole matter.

As you can probably picture from that read, our Falun Gong and related articles are rough corners of Wikipedia. This is solely because Falun Gong and related articles are actively lobbied and edited by groups of adherents. We know this because (1) what would otherwise be totally normal edits and even praised additions of new WP:RS instead typically provoke intense backlash, taunts, and insults, and (2) because scholars have outright written about the Falun Gong's and their leader's Li Hongzhi's attempts at controlling Wikipedia coverage (see for example Lewis 2018: 80).

On to the matter at hand. Like many other religious groups, Falun Gong is persecuted in China. Li Hongzhi started it there in the 1990s before moving his operations to the US. Yet it is tough to get objective information about what exactly is going on over there today. This is partially because over time the group has cultivated a very cozy relationship with NGOs like Amnesty International and Freedom House. This friendly relationship has also attracted the attention of scholars, who have noted for example that "the press often quote Amnesty International, but Amnesty's reports are not verified, and mainly come from Falun Gong sources" (Lewis 2018: 80 & Kavan 2005).

Freedom House frequently also uncritically cites Falun Gong sources, especially Falun Gong's "Falun Dafa Information Center". Here is for example Freedom House citing Falun Gong for demographic information (specifically falundafa.info, ref 31, p. 126), for example.

Now, Wikipedia does not allow for citing Falun Gong arms like The Epoch Times—we've had enough Qanon, Trump truther, vaccination conspiracy, anti-evolution this or that, and January 6 stuff over the years, just as the tip of the iceberg—but we have editors over at the Falun Gong article that say we should be citing the Falun Gong's claims if Freedom House cites them. Personally, I see this as little more than laundering a source, the same source no less that brings us all stripes of conspiracy theories via the Epoch Times and by way of various other less visible organizations.

So, to put an end to these tedious discussions, should we cite claims from Freedom House that come from the Falun Gong, including information that Freedom House takes directly from Falun Gong websites? :bloodofox: (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Cutting through all the irrelevant background on the topic, the issue at hand is that Bloodofox wants the article to use only sources that are hostile to Falun Gong, regardless of publisher. Sennalen (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Apparently that translates to all media coverage of the group from the past several years. I rest my point. Anyway, note that this is clean start account that has quite likely edited extensively on this article in the past. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats an important thing to note... There appears to have been a significant difference in how sources treat FG as they've gotten more and more fringe and more and more involved in American and European politics over the last half decade or so. An insistence on overusing sources from before then instead of the most modern ones would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for the above unsubstantiated personal attack. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Freedom House is a long-established reputable advocacy think tank that has been discussed many times before at RSN. It is a reliable source, but because many, of not most of its articles are opinion pieces reflecting its editorial position, citations to it as a source should be attributed. Looking at the specific article and reference in the OP, the Freedom House article appropriately attributes the demographic figures to their sources, which to a discerning reader is neither endorsement nor criticism. I do not think that this objection is well-taken. Banks Irk (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the secondary sources we have about similar NGOs, I note that Freedom House does not inform the reader that "The Falun Dafa Information Center" is in fact simply just another arm of the Falun Gong. It takes some digging and familiarity with the topic to know this. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I actually disagree with that, I think its so obviously a part of Falun Gong that saying so is almost redundant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Most readers are not going to know that the Falun Gong and Falun Dafa are the same thing, and the site does not clearly identify itself as a Falun Gong entity. RS usually identify such sources as at least 'Falun Gong-aligned' or 'Falun Gong-associated'. Freedom House does not. It's the same situation with The Epoch Times: we know it's Falun Gong because we're used to the grou's approach and have plenty of RS on it but nowhere do they inform the public. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think most people will even notice that they're significantly different. Epoch Times is a different story, if it was the Falun Times I think people would get it... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• It seems like more a due weight issue than a reliability one, yes Freedom House cites FG sources... But cherry picking just that info from those sources to include in the article isn't due. I hear your concerns in terms of Freedom House being used to get FG sources which we otherwise couldn't use in the "back door" per say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Here is the entire Freedom House report which has separate chapters focusing on religious freedom of Buddhism and Daoism, Christianity, Islam, Falun Gong, and Tibetan Buddhism. The chapter on Falun Gong cites from The Falun Dafa Information Center among other sources. Other chapters cite the reports of victim organizations as well. For example, the chapter on Christianity cites from China Aid, a Christian human rights organization; the chapter on Islam cites the Uyghur American Association's report "China's Iron-Fisted Repression of Uyghur Religious Freedom"; and the chapter on Tibetan Buddhism cite sources including The Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and interviews of Tibetan Buddhists. Thanks. Path2space (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  And why should we treat their coverage of FG different from their coverage of all of those other topics? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. There is a well established protocol in this kind of situation. The source is reliable, and it should be used with attribution both of the source and of it's own attribution, e.g. "Freedom House reports that FG claims # of X". This is exactly like conflicting casualty claims by combatants for a battle or war. If some other reliable source has a different figure for the same stat, also reflect that. Banks Irk (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Bloodofox are you aware of Ownby's opinion here? Probably appropriate to consider, tho not specific to Freedom House. fiveby(zero) 17:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

You might provide some kind of quote or page number for what exactly you're referring to. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry i was referring to his discussion in the preface on the use of Falun Gong sources by the human rights advocacy orgs. His is probably still the most respected general introduction to the topic. He fully admits to a "sympathetic" view, that there is no "proof" of many things, and that he is really unqualified to add anything more. There are of course other perspectives, to the extreme of accusing Amnesty International of being a "mouthpiece of Falun Gong". The quality sources are well-aware of the heavy bias and propaganda efforts in the sources of information we have, from both CCP and Falun Gong. So what are we doing here in this RSN thread but attempting to substitute our own opinions for those of the sources we should be looking to build content?

I can only go by the edits you made to the lead section, and have to say those edits look very bad. Freedom House on it's own doesn't warrant a prominent placement probably, but given the totality of sources and discussion, i think you are way out on a limb with what seems to be an effort towards complete removal. fiveby(zero) 14:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware, as you are, that we have several sources discussing the very cozy relationship between these NGOs and Falun Gong. I've brought the reports from Freedom House and Amnesty International in question because they cite Falun Gong websites for data, and we have RS discussing how this relationshiop is problematic. Neither the Chinese government nor the Falun Gong are reliable source for information on the Falun Gong. Full stop. As always, find some reliable, recent sources or expect pushback. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

A disappointing yet common attitude in my opinion, push back against other editors before attempting to serve the reader first. There's an MOS page out there somewhere which advises as to how to craft summary sections. When introducing an article for something like a car model, first tell the reader it's a car. I think in general, seeing the resulting summary you've created, you are neglecting the reader and forgetting that there is first a car here to describe. fiveby(zero) 15:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

You'll likely get better results if you don't speak in riddles. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, consider my feedback—or don't— i really could not care less which. But by posting on a noticeboard you are asking for feedback, and i don't really have the time or motivation for unproductive argument. fiveby(zero) 15:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you disputing that the Falun Gong is a new religious movement centered around Li Hongzhi and based in Deer Park at the Dragon Springs compound? That's what the lead says. I am honestly at a loss about what on earth you're complaining about. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

GNIS for "populated place" list entries

According to the 2021 RfC, the GNIS database is unreliable for "feature class" designations such as "populated place". A question was raised at Talk:List of populated places in Colorado: A–F and Talk:List of populated places in Colorado: P–Z about whether it can be used to support list entries that have no other sources. Does the reliability issue only apply to notability for standalone articles or does it cover all uses including lists? (pinging involved user Buaidh) –dlthewave ☎ 23:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The RFC was clear that the GNIS was unreliable for feature classes like 'populated place'. Not sure how anyone can twist that to mean its not okay to use as a reference for notability on an article on a populated place (because its unreliable as to if its populated or not), but can be used in a 'list of populated places' as a reference somewhere is a populated place without some major mental gymnastics.

Those lists are 'List of populated places' with the scope being 'current or former inhabited places' and 'current and extinct populated places', which the GNIS has found to be unreliable for. If the GNIS is the only source for it being a populated place, its not reliably sourced and should be removed from the list per WP:V. Those lists are not named 'Lists of places GNIS says are/were populated places but probably are not'..... Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Geographic Names Information System#Populated places has several interesting links We have found that a significant number of these Populated Places are road intersections that may have been more populous or otherwise significant in the past.p. 5 and Some entries in the GNIS or on maps are erroneous; or refer to long- vanished railroad sidings where no one ever lived or have fallen out of use and memory.p. 3. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, GNIS is generally unreliable for everything: Articles, lists, claims that the sky is blue. See WP:GNIS for a description of cases in which manual errors in the GNIS have led to ridiculous WP content. I'm in the middle of a long campaign of eliminating articles on nonexistent California locales based on one user's liberal overinterpretation of the "unincorporated community" category in GNIS. If GNIS says New York City is populated, I would consult a second source. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Misunderstood: As a retired Professional Engineer and former surveyor, I’ve worked with United States Geological Survey benchmarks and maps, National Geodetic Survey benchmarks and datasheets, and the Geographic Names Information System for more than 50 years. I believe that many Wikipedia editors misunderstand what the GNIS domestic names feature class “Populated Place” means.

Populated Place - Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding "civil" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes.

Once a place becomes populated, it remains a GNIS populated place even if it loses all of its population. Thus, any of the more than 1,500 Colorado ghost towns may be assigned a GNIS populated place class (although many ghost towns disappeared before the USGS could locate them.) I track these ghost towns which are very important to the history of the western mining regions.

Many towns were built during the construction of the western railroads, mines, mills, tollroads, tunnels, and later, highways. Most railroads established section houses for housing maintenance crews at intervals of approximately 6 miles (10 km). Section houses were often located near stations, road crossings, or sidings, but many had to be located in remote areas. Sometimes an extended community would develop around the section house. Most section houses were eventually abandoned, thus creating an extinct populated place.

As discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 357#RfC: GNIS, no article should be created for a GNIS populated place unless at least one other reference confirms the GNIS entry. If I find a GNIS populated place in a list for which I cannot find another reference, I mark it as a [[Geographic Names Information System|GNIS place]]. It is a mistake to delete list entries unless you can prove that a GNIS populated place has never been populated. (Proving a negative is almost always impossible.) Deleting a GNIS populated place list entry could destroy valuable historical information.

If you are certain that a GNIS populated place has never been occupied, you should contact the United States Board on Geographic Names at BGNexec@usgs.gov to identify the error before deleting the list entry. I know many of you like to sneer at the GNIS, but over the years, I’ve found it to be remarkably accurate. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 03:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

But academic sources have questioned the the reliability of, and shown errors in, places marked as 'Populated Places'. Including showing that the published form and the database don't align, and some places were never populated. If you want to go through and help USGS find and correct any errors in the database that's up to you, but until they are the use of the database is in question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Like all government agencies, the USGS and the USBGN have limited resources, so I think it is incumbent on all U.S. editors to provide whatever assistance we can. Thank you,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 14:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'm one of the four editors who isn't in the US. Reliable sources are one known for having a history of fact checking, not ones that editors have check the facts for. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

No, but i think this is really the wrong question to be asking. GNIS is really just a convenience, and the sources (in an outside of WP sense) are the USGS products and and the Board on Geographic Names work cards. In my (limited) experience if a name appeared on a USGS map product there will most likely not be any problem finding a bunch of sources. The work cards are a different story tho, the ones i've seen are a pretty skimpy bit of documentation, with penciled in notes and no real indication where any of the names came from. But in many cases, by searching state or county historical societies, Chronicling America or the WPLibrary newspaper achives, and using alternate names found on the card, something will probably to turn up. But that still doesn't warrant including in a "Populated Place" list. A nineteenth century town, maybe with big dreams for growth and important for a couple of years, but eventually abandoned is the usual story, and maybe could generate a few sentences of prose for content. So where should you put that prose and those sources within WP and is the effort even worthwhile?

An online historical WP:Gazetteer would be a tremendously useful thing, but WP:Wikipedia is not a gazetteer until it can figure out how to be one, and per Only in death lists of "Populated Places" are not right and not really useful. fiveby(zero) 14:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Questionable GNIS populated places in a list can be marked with {{efn|name=GNISpp|This [[Geographic Names Information System]] place may require additional verification.}}. This preserves the location for further examination. I've done this for the List of populated places in Colorado. This is certainly preferable to deletion. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 17:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to preserve information, however the entries I removed have already been checked and no other sources were found. We really shouldn't leave these in mainspace indefinitely after verification attempts have failed. As an alternative, would you like me to start a separate list or table in wiki space to save the deleted information? –dlthewave ☎ 20:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That is a good idea. Please see below. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the tags aren't absolutely dictionary definitions, and the details state they are not meant to be. So places of human activity get marked with 'Populated Place' even if no human has ever lived there. This is all fine for the database, but once you start building articles or lists of places of human habitation off of that tag there's a problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Colorado repository: Following the advice of User:Dlthewave, I’ve created a repository for questionable Colorado GNIS populated places at Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado/GNIS places needing verification. I’ve moved the places Dlthewave identified in the List of populated places in Colorado to this new repository for further investigation. I would appreciate the help of anyone who can identify questionable GNIS populated places in Colorado. Other U.S. states may wish to do something similar. Thank you,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Onedio.com

Turkish website: https://onedio.com/. Posting here because 126 articles seem to be using this as a source. (no wonder, they show up on Google News)
At first glance it doesn't seem that bad, they are at least ticking some boxes:

• They have an editorial policy (YMMV with machine translation)
• They have an article at w:tr:Onedio.
• Their Facebook and Twitter accounts have been verified.
• They have apps on both the Google Play store and Apple's app store. (particularly the latter requires jumping through some more hoops AFAIK)

But these mostly indicate that a source is to some degree established, WP:DAILYMAIL probably passes these checks as well.
Their editorial policy states (translated) "onedio.com is independent of both government and partisan interests". Umm, not while Erdoğan is in charge I think, but I can't prove that.
Their editorial policy also states (translated) "We do not publish information and content taken, collected or brought together from other sources without specifying the source". Too bad I just caught them with their hand in the cookie jar. This article on onedio.com is heavily based on our article about SSSniperWolf. It's listing the same facts in roughly the same order but interspersed with photos from various sources. Some lines seem almost copy-pasted even after double translation decay, e.g. "Lia Shelesh hosted the Clickbait show in which social media users competed in unusual challenges." when I wrote "In 2017 she hosted the show Clickbait in which social media influencers competed in unusual challenges."
I hereby give Onedio.com a license to use my contribution to the article without attribution or ShareAlike requirements (which probably covers most of their article), so nobody go harassing them please. But it seems we shouldn't use them as a source to avoid WP:CIRCULAR. If the source is deemed conditional, great care should be taken to avoid any Wikipedia articles they rehashed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

why is there no platform where everyone can write the news they want - after all, everyone in the social media world is considered a kind of journalist now?[63] which probably explains why their articles make liberal use of Wikipedia articles, and why their shouldn't be considered an RS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

We Tell You Your Personality According to the Woman You Find Attractive! is not particularly confidence-inspiring either. Half of my personality assessment seems to be wrong!
On the other hand, the outcome of We Explain Your Psychology According to This Color Test! is almost completely spot on! — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The Mary Sue (in context), others

In current reporting of Sam Altman's sister's accusations of sexual assault against, controversy has been stirred over in Talk:Sam Altman over one particular source: Specifically this article on The Mary Sue, cited in the context of: "The lack of initial news coverage this got at the time has been more recently criticized as being motivated by the lionization of Altman in the press."

1) While accepting that The Mary Sue is a Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial, there is argument that the article is an opinion piece and cannot be used to defend the claim it was linked to (above). What is your viewpoint on this assertion?

2) In the edit, reporting of his sister's allegations was backed by two other sources before it: Slate and Times Now News. Numerous additional sources have also been suggested in talk, including VentureBeat[64], Genius (company)[65], 20 minutes (France) [66], Koran Jakarta [67], The Independent (Turkish edition) [68], The Thaiger [69], Liberty Times [70], Yahoo News (Taiwan edition) [71], and about a dozen others. What is your viewpoint on these sources being sufficient for use on a WP:BLP article?

Thanks in advance - I'll respect whatever the consensus is here. Rei (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@ReiThat article is definitely an opinion piece. It ends with the sentence "What we need to remember is that we, together, can save ourselves, and that all-powerful “tech bros” are only as powerful as we allow them to be." The Mary Sue is already tagged as being considered opinionated by some in the list of perennial sources, but I think that by ending a piece with a call to action like that marks the transition from "opinionated article" to "opinion piece" - yet the article is reachable under the "News" header right now.

I checked The Mary Sue's section on opinion pieces, which contains a whole two articles - from 2013 and 2015. Both pieces merely have a tag at the bottom instead of marking the article as an explicit opinion piece at the top. I think, Altman aside, that The Mary Sue has a tagging problem here

Addendum: I don't question for a second that the assault is real. That's not an opinion. However, the article does contain the aforementioned call to action, accusations against the press in general regarding this case as well as scrutiny of tech bros etc.Cortador (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Reading through the somewhat long discussion at Talk:Sam Altman#Sister's tweets the issue appears to be one of DUE rather than RS. The sources maybe reliable, but that doesn't guarantee inclusion.

As an aside, and as it comes up a lot, the last article isn't by Yahoo news, it's by Mashdigi. Yahoo news is simply acting as an aggregator. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, both of you (I'll wait a few days to see if any other comments show up). With issue #2, it seems thusfar like the consensus is "Yes to RS, but DUE needs to be resolved on talk". With issue #1, it's really two issues: 1A, whether it's an opinion piece; and 1B, whether it can be used as a citation for the text ("The lack of initial news coverage this got at the time has been more recently criticized as being motivated by the lionization of Altman in the press."). Thusfar, the view seems to be that the answer to 1A is "yes". What about 1B?

Again, thanks for the replies! People who take the time to comment on pages like this really hold the site together. -- Rei (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think stating that there wasn't enough news coverage initially is fine if attributed to The Mary Sue in-line. Cortador (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's fine to quote an opinion piece as the opinion of its author. So, for example, if I wrote an op-ed in the Grauniad saying:

/b/ used to be good, but now it's a pile of shit.

This would not be suitable:

As of 2023, /b/ used to be good but now it's a pile of shit.^[69]

It would, however, be fine to write this:

Famous poster JPxG, writing for the Grauniad in 2023, said that /b/ 'used to be good' but has since turned into a 'pile of shit'.^[69]

Assuming, of course, that there were some reason for my opinion about posts to be noteworthy. jp×g🗯️ 23:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

ARF related sources on AA topics

Several news sites owned by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) are used as sources in Thomas Goltz article, a US-based journalist known for his coverage of Armenia-Azerbaijan topics. The ARF is an ultra-nationalist and irredentist (official ideology - United Armenia) party in Armenia. Sources such as armenianweekly.com (the English-language edition of Hairenik, which has faced accusations of sympathizing with Nazism and Anti-semitism), horizonweekly.ca are one-sided and clearly represent a fringe POV. Some users argue that these are are reliable sources for stating facts in controversial topics like Armenia-Azerbaijan, but I believe that they should only be used in articles when representing the POV of the website or the ARF on the issue. Aredoros87 (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it's been discussed before, this could use some input from editors knowledgeable of the subject area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Reliable source for ARF being "ultra-nationalist"? And Hairenik hasn't been accused of "sympathizing with Nazism and Anti-semitism", that was Aredoros's original research interpretation from a single 1940s primary source that was a self-described "propaganda agency".[72] --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Since we could not reach an agreement, it's pointless to discuss the same topic here, but I have to respond this because KhndzorUtogh is misleading people here:

that was Aredoros's original research interpretation from a single 1940s primary source

False. There were 3 different secondary sources in that article, but yesterday just before writing here Khndzor deleted sourced content.

was a self-described "propaganda agency".

We literally had the exact same conversation on talk page ~20 days before. The user did the same cherry-picking before, and I explained then the user changed topic to played the game (WP:PTG). Please beaware of talk pages if you are considering to take into account Khndzor's baseless accusations. Thanks. Aredoros87 (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

ARF is an Armenian nationalist party that claims territories of 3 neighboring states (as mentioned in Wikipedia article about them). At one point it was even banned in Armenia. I don't think the sources affiliated with this party could be considered neutral. Grandmaster 17:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

If the neutrality of the sources is the issues then as per WP:BIASED maybe in-text attribution is an option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Whole Life Times

I'm looking for secondary sources that might be helpful while revising the wikipedia article on Kriyananda, which currently relies heavily on primary sources. Is Whole Life Times [73] a reliable secondary source for information about the life of Kriyananda? For example, could I use this article [74] to support the claim that Kriyananda wrote 150 books? Perception312 (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

That "About us" section is really discouraging for treating it as reliable, as that article is presumably from 2013, and the history of the mag says absolutely zero about who was running it when it was revived in 2008, until its takeover by a new head in 2016. Better information would be needed to give this status as reliable. The "150 books" claim is aggressive, and is open to wide interpretation (even if there is some basis for the count, it may rely on treating translations as separate titles.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reliable source. It looks like the kind of page that would copy from Wikipedia. Cortador (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

According to its Writers Guidelines, this magazine relies mostly on freelancers but it asks for verification info, so there's some level of fact-checking and editorial oversight. However, I'm leaning toward no for the Kriyananda article with respect to the 150 books, as "150 books published in 30 languages in more than 100 countries" seems a bit generic and vague to me. 23impartial (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, all! Perception312 (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I will also note that the writer guidelines you cite first showed up in that location in February of 2015, so we cannot be sure the same guides were in place in 2013... although it should've been under the same regime, so it's likely. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Nice catch. Thank you. 23impartial (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The Economic Times

Hi I'd like to get opinions on whether The Economic Times is a reliable source when used at Phoolan Devi. It is taken as India's leading financial newspaper by other newspapers such as Washington Post, Guardian, NYT, Times. It's not in the list of perennial sources and searching the RSN archives doesn't give a conclusive view. At Phoolan Devi, two citations are used three times:

• "Main witness of Behmai massacre dies, court yet to pronounce verdict in 1981 case is used to back The court case concerning the Behmai massacre began in 2012; of the twenty-three people facing charges, sixteen (including Phoolan Devi) were dead by 2020. Of the seven remaining suspects, three were on the run (including Man Singh). A verdict was expected in January 2020 and then delayed because important case documents had been lost.
• "Eye on Nishad votes, Akhilesh meets Phoolan Devi's mother" is used to partly back Mallah people were happy to have someone of their caste representing them in parliament for the first time and she was generally popular among Other Backward Classes. She visited her constituents in their villages and listened to their concerns.[32][33] and Also in 2021, tributes marking the anniversary of her death were made by Akhilesh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party, Chirag Paswan of the Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) and Tejashwi Yadav of Rashtriya Janata Dal.[33][70]

Thanks for any help. The previous discussion about this is at Talk:Phoolan_Devi#The_Economic_Times Mujinga (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The Economic Times is owned by Times Group, which also owns the Times of India. The Times of India has a mixed reputation based on our list of perennial sources. However, that doesn't mean that all news outlets of Times Group are automatically unreliable. Reuters states that Indian news in general has tough times due to government suppression, and that freedom of the press is low in India. That said, freedom of the press doesn't determine the quality of journalism - you can have a free press that consists of nothing but tabloid rags. However, the low freedom of press combined with borderline promotional pieces like this about Modi, which The Economic Times is unreliable with regards to the Indian government. Nevertheless, they may be reliable for reporting that doesn't step on the government's toes. Cortador (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The Economic Times is considered a reliable source. Perhaps it is worth adding a note of caution on The Times of India in regards to India related articles. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not, there has been no significant discussion on it previously and the related ones that have occured don't lead to such a conclusion (2013, 2021). There is also nothing unique about The Times of India (TOI) for a note like that, there are many others of its kind with some variations here and there.

Regarding the question, it is true one musn't paint all publications under a particular owner with the same brush and instead assess them individually. That said, in this case it is very valid. Times Group (BCCL) is known for having pioneered the strategy of paid news, as in selling advertisement space in the place of articles and having hidden advertorials which masquerade as news pieces, through its flagship The Times of India, which was then quickly adopted into The Economic Times. The same goes for the pro-government orientation, these two things are actually quite related because a lot of the times the advertorials are coming from the government. The practice itself is also a big liability if the government is dissatisfied with them so you can generally expect these kinds of newspapers to loyally toe the government line regardless of whether the articles are paid for or not (forget concern for factual accuracy), to the point that their normal articles are even discernable since there are no disclosures, this is also in the context of democratic backsliding and the present government's crackdown on independent press generally.

Also, for Indian newspapers generally one can also assume that the assessment of a company's flagship newspaper (The Times of India (RSP entry), The Indian Express (RSP entry) The Hindu (RSP entry), etc) is applicable to their business newspaper (The Economic Times, The Financial Express, The Hindu Businessline, etc) as well. They are usually packaged together or even come as a supplements to the flagship newspaper, and tend to be organisationally conjoined, sometimes even sharing staff. Now, this wouldn't apply to say some publication like Bangalore Mirror which is also owned by Times Group.

As for the specific article, the information is probably accurate but for the lack of doubt, it would be preferable to replace them with better sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

References

BNN Breaking

While looking for information regarding the Venezuelan opposition article, I encountered this article. Having encountered this source multiple times before I decided to look into it.

BNN Breaking has been linked over 200 times on Wikipedia. The website is a product of Gurbaksh Chahal.[75] It has over 100,000 subscribers on YouTube, 140,000 followers on Facebook and on Twitter, it previously had billions of impressions per month (according to BNN). Recently, BNN Breaking got into a legal dispute with Twitter (X) and was removed from the platform. This resulted with the personal Twitter profile of Chalal receiving half of a million followers.

An October 2023 article titled "'Fake news' site publishes more false stories about San Francisco Supervisor Dean Preston" by the SFGate said that Twitter accounts linked to BNN Breaking "were banned last year for violating policies on spam and misinformation" and that three BNN articles about Dean Preston were "negative" and "each contained misleading or false information." SFGate goes on to write: "One of those stories, which was bylined by BNN Breaking founder Gurbaksh Chahal and was riddled with inaccuracies, referred to Preston as 'arguably the most attention-seeking, spineless, and downright insufferable politician the city has ever seen.' Two sentences later, Chahal boasted that BNN maintains a 'commitment to impartiality.'"

Is there more we can do to determine the reliability of BNN Breaking? Should we take a look at the articles that contain information from BNN Breaking? Or, should we just keep and eye on the BNN Breaking for now? WMrapids (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

They sound like a fake news site but if not it should be easy to find out because they say Day after day, esteemed outlets like The Washington Post, Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, CNN, The Daily Beast, and Yahoo News, turn to BNN Breaking for credible insights. [76] Softlem (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Reliability issues at the POV Venezuelan opposition could keep this page busy all month.[77]

Like the other sources used to cite the undue content: "During her speech following her victory in the 2023 Unitary Platform presidential primaries, María Corina Machado used the seven-star flag of Venezuela on stage behind her":

• https://primiciasvenezuela.com/2023/10/24/usuarios-de-las-redes-sociales-estallan-contra-maria-corina-machado-por-mostrar-bandera-de-7-estrellas/
• https://www.elinformadorve.com/24/10/2023/destacada/maria-corina-machado-aqui-todos-estamos-convocados-a-un-proceso-de-construccion/
• https://el-politico.com/actualidad/noticias-el-politico/maria-corina-machado-los-venezolanos-derrotaron-una-forma-de-hacer-politica/

... there are no About us or Contact pages upon which we can judge things like staff, editorial oversight, fact checking, and they all have the same look and feel, designed to push info via clickbait for social media like Facebook.

Perhaps these websites provide a new extension of chavista propaganda (the Venezuelan branch of "fake news"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

While we're at it, I should also point out to one of the latest reports of the Venezuelan fact-checking coalition C-Informa: #CiberalianzaAlDescubierto: El Mazo y las redes anónimas se unen para desinformar. ("#CiberallianceUncovered: El Mazo and the anonymous networks join forces to misinform"). It dsicusses how government astrosurfing campaigns and disinformation networks, which previously targeted leaders such as Juan Guaidó or Leopoldo López, now take aim at María Corina Machado shortly before and after the opposition presidential primaries. One of their tactics is precisely impersonating reliable news outlets, and an eye should be kept out for the upcoming presidential elections next year. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Sample, note:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20090824115648/http://www.elinformador.com.ve/quienes-somos

Versus:

• https://www.elinformadorve.com/ (no about page)

And then there's Bolivarian Army of Trolls.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Electronic Intifada

What is the reliability of Electronic Intifada?

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

The last discussion was in 2018 and can be found here. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2: The previous discussion on the Electronic Intifada (EI) was not a particularly sophisticated discussion and needs revisiting: it was not a formal RFC, and the opening statement was somewhat rambling, but one key takeaway is that EI does not appear to have generated serious concerns about its adherence to factual accuracy. Media bias fact check is not a reliable source, but is a usefully indicative resource, and it "could not find any instance where EI directly failed a fact check from major fact checking sources". The site goes on to note that only rates "Mostly Factual" as opposed to "High" in terms of its reporting "due to a lack of transparency regarding funding, as well as strongly loaded emotional wording that may be misleading – so again, pertaining to bias, not factual error. EI is distinctly biased (as all media sources are) – this is certain – and this was the principle charge laid against it in the previous discussion, but bias ≠ unreliable, per WP:BIASEDSOURCES, but merely demands attribution. In the case of EI, the direction of its bias, and its specificity to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so obvious that it hardly bears mentioning, but option 2 allows for the formal caveating of the source and noting the attribution requirement. I would note that the first naysayer in the last discussion was the now notorious sock puppeteer User:Icewhiz wielding a Huffington Post opinion piece as the only evidence of factual issues, and, per WP:HUFFPOCON, Huffington Post contributions have themselves been deemed unreliable (in a subsequent 2020 RFC). Many of the following votes merely cite the source's bias, which again, should be addressed through attribution, but does not relate directly to reliability. There are a couple of editorial issues that are drummed up, including a piece from 2008 with a misleading quote that has since been caveated at the bottom of the piece, and another quibbled-over piece regarding a statement and its attribution dating to 2002. However, that in 2018 the best evidence of EI's unreliability that could be drummed up are some relatively isolated poorly attributed statements from 2002 and 2008 suggests to me that the evidence of factual inaccuracy is very threadbare indeed. WP:GUNREL means "generally" unreliable, not demonstrably unreliable once every decade or so. I'm not sure I've seen a bar as high as this applied to any source. To maintain the GUNREL rating for EI, a more serious discussion is required, and some significantly more substantial and damning evidence needs to be provided sustaining the charges of factual inaccuracy or manipulation, as opposed to merely lambasting it for its bias, which is utterly transparent – if only in its name alone, with which it really wears its heart on its sleeve about its leaning. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

MBFC is not a useful way of gauging source reliability. It is the opinion of one random guy, no different to the opinion of the average Wikipedia contributor. That said, I have no opinion on the reliability of this publication. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4: Existing consensus is that the source is generally unreliable for facts, as discussed, for example, in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_250#Electronic_Intifada_(Again). This source is not only extremely biased but also has a very poor reputation for fact-checking. There were plenty of examples brought up in previous discussions. The fact that the website is cited in existing articles, usually for opinions with attribution, has no relevance to its tendency, or lack thereof, to provide accurate and trustworthy facts. Citing these kinds of sources for matters of fact would compromise Wikipedia's reputation as a trustworthy reference. There is also strong consensus that The Electronic Intifada is a partisan source, although this is independent of its reliability. If something is worthy of publishing in Wikipedia, then there will surely be better RS options. Marokwitz (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Marokwitz: If you are saying it is generally unreliable, why have you said option 4, which is deprecation - something else. To deprecate a source, you need to provide some justification, not just your impression based on old, very outdated evidence, part of which was countered in the prior discussion, and which was further discussed in my statement. You have not progressed the discussion on the detail in and way, but merely opined in it. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Al Mayadeen and Press TV are very similar to Electronic Intifada. In comparison, the tabloid Daily Star (UK), though not a top-tier source, is considered more reliable. These three have been deprecated due to their one-sided reporting and loose approach for fact checking. Examples I saw recently in EI include coverage of Israa Jarbis where Electronic Intifada fails to mention she has seriously injured a police officer; relying on a debunked community-noted tweet by Twitter user SyrianGirl as a source in a recent article; and reporting on helicopters shooting at Nova partygoers based on a Haaretz article, while failing to disclose the police's rebuttal of this claim that was published on the same day.

  Overall, evidence shows that the site has a non-existent approach to fact-checking and publishing formal error corrections. Publishing the truth doesn't seem to be a priority compared to advocacy of a specific narrative, thus I believe it should be deprecated to save our editors' time. Marokwitz (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• No consensus. No statements made by the source have been given by the opener of the RfC. What are we supposed to evaluate here? jp×g🗯️ 23:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 - it publishes mostly opinion, and where that opinion is by an expert in the field it should be able to be used. But for its news reporting, it is reporting on other outlets reports. I would say, as I did in the last discussion, that when they report something it will usually be found in other sources, otherwise I place it basically on the opposite end of Arutz Sheva and would not use it as a source for facts. nableezy - 23:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

This noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of sources in context. What kind of content do you want to use and for which article? Alaexis_¿question? 20:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The regular discussions are about the sources in context, but the RFCs are general and a simple neutral question with the four options. See the other RFCs further up the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The point stands. EI is cited as a source in several hundred articles, so its status at RSP has not presented an obstacle to its use. Is there an actual, live issue about its use or misuse as a source? Otherwise a new RFC is not in order. Banks Irk (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The previous discussion was not a formal RFC with the four normal choices; Option 2, i.e. a halfway house was not presented; and the discussion was swamped by accounts now blocked as sock puppets/puppeteers. It was a not a level of discussion that should stand as the bar for this source. Obviously being labelled as GUNREL has a long-term impact on whether the source is deemed usable, with or without caveats. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

One more thing, is there a way to distinguish opinions from news published by the EI? E.g., is this article an opinion piece or news [78]? Here are some of the quotes from it (a) But we are to believe the Israelis had no idea [of the October 7 attack that] was planned right under their noses? They probably knew. And they waited for it., (b) The vast network of Zionist organizations acts as appendages of the Israeli state that extend into all our lives around the world. Alaexis_¿question? 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Not in the url from what I can tell, but other than by style, each piece has a short author bio at the end. The example you've shared has a conversational tone that betrays it as clear opinion, but beyond that it is attributed to an external party - the director of a literature festival. This analysis, on the other hand, is attributed to various contributors and "Asa Winstanley is an investigative journalist and associate editor with The Electronic Intifada", so we know it's in-house. This colour piece appears to be not in-house, but from a journalist and presumably commissioned, but it's a colour piece, so not news. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

So I assume that the analysis is the kind of content you'd like to use on Wikipedia. It's long and uses all kind of sources which range from very reliable to complete garbage, but these are some of the highlights

• Non-sequitur bordering on fake news. How is an opinion of a retired officer who did not take part in the fighting becomes a confirmation that Israel killed most Israeli civilians?

“ A retired Israeli army major has admitted [sic] Israel probably killed some of the 1,200 Israelis the government claims Hamas murdered on 7 October. The confession, discovered by The Electronic Intifada, is one of the highest level confirmations to date that Israel killed many, if not most, of the civilians that died during the Palestinian offensive. ”

• Opinion-piece-style statements in the supposed analysis piece: [Josep Borrell] had no regard for the dead women, children and elderly of Palestine, not to mention the men.
• Extreme bias: the hostages are described as detainees in the custody of Palestinian fighters
• Usage of dodgy sources: they mention an anonymous letter published by Mondoweiss

I wouldn't support deprecating the EI, unless there are proven examples of publishing deliberate falsehoods, but it falls far short of reliable source standards. Alaexis_¿question? 11:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe I set out by noting that its bias is clear. The question remains not one of its opinion, but one of factual inaccuracy. And, e.g., the "one of the highest level confirmations" statement, while clearly leaning into a viewpoint, is still couched. Any exceptional claims also remain covered by WP:ECREE. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Kingship and Colonialism in India’s Deccan 1850–1948

Is this a reliable source? Kingship and Colonialism in India’s Deccan 1850–1948 for citing historic events? Ajayraj890 (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The author is a history professor (Benjamin B. Cohen) and the work is published by respectable publisher (Springer), so it should be reliable. Is there any particular detail that you're interested in? No source is always reliable, so context is important. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I am checking about the military conflicts between the kingdoms of Deccan during 16th century. Ajayraj890 (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

By context I meant an specific details, rather than the whole subject. As an example the book might be generally reliable, but include one specific statement that goes against academic consensus and so would be unreliable for that claim. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I would like to utilize the information from the second paragraph on page 47. IA (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Which information specifically from that paragraph do you want to use and what statements to you propose to add to the article? Banks Irk (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

For anyone interested page 47 should be available here. I can't see anything exceptional, but it could be taken out of context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Rfc: Should the Eras Tour be mentioned in the lead of Sabrina Carpenter?

An RfC has been made here regarding whether Carpenter opening Taylor Swift's Eras Tour should be mentioned in the lead of Carpenter's biography article or not. You are invited to participate. ℛonherry☘ 17:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph (UK)

I want to re-open the debate on the reliability score given to the Daily Telegraph as a perennial source. It's currently on "Generally reliable". Epa101 (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Responses (The Daily Telegraph (UK))

• I know that there was a debate on the Telegraph in December 2022. This will focus on rulings by the Independent Press Standards Organisation since then. I have found seven cases when either the Daily Telegraph or telegraph.co.uk was given a sanction on a point of accuracy. I feel that its "Generally reliable" status is outdated. It has drifted outwith the mainstream with its vaccine scepticism. I know that their opinion on vaccines is outwith the considerations on this board, but I mention it to illustrate that this is not the "newspaper of record" of the past. I presume that there is only a realistic chance of its going down one rank, so I'll just put two options.

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations

Exhibit 1 They said that a court had overruled the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. This was not true.

Exhibit 2 They said that Sweden's spending on COVID-related interventions was less than a tenth as much as the UK's. This was not true.

Exhibit 3 They said that there is evidence that home-schooled children do not receive a good education, but then failed to produce the evidence when challenged.

Exhibit 4 They published inaccurate numbers on the number of people allowed to stay in the country under the UK's schemes in combatting modern slavery.

Exhibit 5 They said that a gas-turbine generator that was small enough to go on the back of a lorry would produce the same electricity, faster and more reliably, than 10 offshore wind turbines the size of the Eiffel Tower. This is not true.

Exhibit 6 They said that doctors and nurses were receiving 9% pay increases. This was not true.

Exhibit 7 They said that the decrease in deportation of criminals was linked to an increase in legal challenges on the grounds of human rights, but they could not back this up. You'll not be surprised to know that I vote for Option 2:. I know that all newspapers make mistakes, but I have two simple reasons: first, many of the British newspapers with lower reliability scores have made fewer mistakes in the same time period; second, the mistakes show a systematic bias towards the political right and I do not believe that this pattern could be a coincidence of simple errors. Epa101 (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 with regard to any of its 'oppion' pieces. The issue goes beyond just making mistakes, and in Exhibits 3–7 they argued for there incorrect figures/details until IPSO rules against them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliableLukewarmbeer (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 The source is clearly biased in terms of its right-wing perspective, but no news organisation is free of bias. However, the examples listed above do not detract from its reliability for our purposes. Rulings of this nature occur frequently for UK news orgs. I will deal with them one by one:

Ruling 1 (Sturgeon GRB): This was an opinion piece in which the columnist made a factual error. It would not be used in Wikipedia. The paper published a correction.

Ruling 2 (Covid) Opinion piece, would not be used other than for the writer's opinion. IPSO-mandated correction published.

Ruling 3 (Homeschooling) Opinion piece, would not be used other than for the writer's opinion. IPSO-mandated correction published.

Ruling 4 (modern slavery) Article quoted a minister who made inaccurate statements, and complaint was only partly upheld. IPSO-mandated correction published.

Ruling 5 (gas turbines)Opinion piece, would not be used other than for the writer's opinion. IPSO-mandated correction published.

Ruling 6 (doctors pay claim) This piece has poor use of statistics, however, the body text was accurate and the only factually false section was the headline which could not be used per WP:HEADLINE,

Ruling 7Was inaccurate, but only in part, and was corrected by IPSO.

Only two articles could have led to misleading information making it into Wikipedia, and these were later corrected. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Does it not matter that those two were only corrected after an IPSO ruling? If we say that corrections after an IPSO ruling erase the original error, then any newspaper that's a member of IPSO (i.e. the vast majority) would become a reliable source, since they all correct their errors when IPSO tell them to. Epa101 (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, not all papers are regulated by IPSO, but the two that aren't are probably more reliable in any case. I fully agree that membership of IPSO does not make a paper reliable, but I don't see significant unreliable content here. These are mostly really borderline cases, and the amount of good sourcing we would lose by downgrading the telegraph is insane. We can't compare with the Mail which is unusable given the propagandist nature of its entire output, or even something like the Jewish Chronicle which published a large number of factually inaccurate stories on a single topic over a very short period . Boynamedsue (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• No consensus. I really think it's destructive to the project to constantly be having RfCs about "do you like this newspaper? YES, everything it says is automatically true or NO, everything it says is automatically false". In the real world of normal humans, there are always "considerations" when you write something and find sources to cite. Opinion pieces reflect opinions. Why do we have to have an official stance on them? jp×g🗯️ 23:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (The Daily Telegraph (UK))

• You haven't set this up as an RFC, WP:RFCOPEN explains how to do it properly. That will ensure that notifications are sent out, and the discussion is listed correctly. As an aside "Exhibit 1" doesn't say that "Nicola Sturgeon resigned as a result of the Bill" was untrue but rather that it was a unprovable statement of opinion, and "Exhibit 2" has the same link as "Exhibit 1". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Epa101, ping so you're aware. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  My apologies for not setting this up correctly. After more than 15 years on Wikipedia, I'm still making errors. Thanks also for your pointers on my mistake. Epa101 (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Epa101, please remove all of your argumentation to the discussion section and leave a neutral rfc statement at the top before this draws responses. As it is now it's a violation of WP:RFCNEUTRAL. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  OK, I'm moving it. I don't understand why some of the other notices on this Noticeboard don't have this structure that's being required here, but I'll move it anyway. Epa101 (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Bad RFC Not only is this malformed, as noted above, but it is improper. The last RFC was only a year ago. All of the "evidence" consists of complaints about statements in editorial of opinion pieces, not the accuracy or inaccuracy of news reports. And none of them involved use of those opinion pieces as sources in a specific article here. A new RFC is not in order. Banks Irk (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

    First, putting evidence in inverted commas is just childish. That is robust evidence. All of it is since the last decision, so it's all new. It all says that it's a matter of fact and not of opinion. Are you arguing that the IPCC is wrong to say that these are matters of fact? If so, you need a source for that, which is stronger than the IPCC's judgement. As regards how they're not used in a specific article, I don't think that is required for a judgement on a perennial source. There wouldn't be much point in having the ratings for each perennial source if we just judged each article on its individual merits. Why say that the Mirror, Morning Star, Mail, Sun, Express, etc. is less reliable in general by the Telegraph if we can just judge each article in each publication on its own merits? When we gave lower ratings to those publications, we didn't say that their inaccuracies had to occur in an article cited in a Wikipedia article. Epa101 (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

    Agree it's far too soon for another RFC Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

    Is there any time period in which you're not allowed to make another suggestion? I didn't see this in the rules. I can understand that it would get annoying if the same person keeps making the same argument again and again, but I hope that my suggestion here is substantially different to the last one. The December 2022 debate was dominated by the Telegraph's coverage of trans issues. That comes into my first exhibit, but that is only one of seven. I would also note that this newspaper has changed in recent years. It has become more alt-right (e.g. on vaccines) and less conventionally Conservative Party; a rule that a source cannot be reconsidered for multiple risks missing changes such as this. Epa101 (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Several of these complaints appear to be with reference to opinion pieces in the Telegraph, which already would not usually be considered reliable for statements of fact per WP:RSOPINION. I think only three ([79], [80], [81]) are related to the Telegraph's news coverage, of which one ([82]) only rules that the headline was misleading: and per WP:RSHEADLINE headlines are already not a reliable source. So of the seven rulings initially cited, as far as I can make out only two are relevant to the question of the reliability of the Telegraph's news coverage. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Also, 4 is about false statements by a former minister that were correctly reported. Although that violates IPSO journalistic standards, rs policy does not say that news media could report false statements by politicians without fact-checking them. TFD (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Agree per Banks Irk BADRFC, and no need for a new RFC per Caeciliusinhorto and others that the examples offered are opinion pieces, not news, whose use is already covered by other guideline. I also note criticism of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) at that article, and wonder if there is any such body limiting freedom of published opinions in other countries (eg US). We have fact-checkers, for example, but no body that I'm aware of limiting the freedom to be wrong in your opinions. Short of defamatory publications, I wonder how many non-UK publications would by reduced to "restrictions apply" to their reliability if we included mistakes in their commentary and opinion sections; I suspect we'd be left with very few generally reliable sources if we scrutinized very opinion column in the US to the level that apparently the IPSO does. When fact-checking extends to opinion and commentary, rather than news, short of defamation, that would seem to limit freedom of expression, which includes the possibility of being wrong in your opinions. And if the UK has this IPSO body, why do they have such a horrific tabloid industry (confused)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  You can search on their website for breaches, including whether a sanction was decided upon, against any newspaper that is a member (which is the vast majority). Note that the websites are listed separately from the paper, as some articles are only published online. If we compare to newspapers with a lower reliability rating in the same time period: the Daily Mirror/Sunday Mirror has 4, the Morning Star has 0, the Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday has 3, the Daily Express/Sunday Express has 3, the Sun [on Sunday] has 3 and the Daily Star [Sunday] has 0. I accept that some newspapers see the IPSO as insufficiently strict and have not joined, so we cannot compare with them. Still I think that there are enough member newspapers to make comparisons. I feel that the Daily Telegraph is living on old glory with its Wikipedia reputation. Epa101 (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that most of the complaints were about commentary pieces, which are not considered rs anyway. Also, the proposer does not provide any comparison with other broadsheets. If for example the Financial Times, Independent and Guardian had similar levels of complaints upheld against them, then we would be unfairly apply an impossible standard. In fact those papers are not even members of the IPSO, yet are considered rs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 17:16, November 24, 2023 (UTC)

The Independent is considered a bit of a fallen giant in Britain now and it is not considered alongside the other broadsheets any more, but nonetheless it has 0 rulings against it for accuracy in this time period. The Financial Times has 0 rulings in the same period. The Times has 3. Unlike other British newspapers with Sunday editions, the Sunday Times is still a very different newspaper from the Times, so I'll count that separately. The Sunday Times has 1. The Guardian is not a member of IPSO, so I cannot compare with that. These comparisons are limited, but the Telegraph has more than others considered. As you can see in my response to SandyGeorgia above, the perennial sources with lower reliability scores have had fewer sanctions for accuracy in this period. Epa101 (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It still reflects an odd sense of press freedom, given there is no such thing in the US to my knowledge; people are entitled to errors in their opinions, as long as they aren't defamatory. And given we have no such beast in the US, it makes no sense to penalize one UK paper for a controversial guardian of the press. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Breakinglatest.news

Over the last few months, there have been several reports of The Smiley Company giving legal threats to individuals on Etsy and Ebay over selling smiley face-related products. An edit ([83]) was made to the company's article regarding this, but the source given looked... really bad.

I checked the RSN archives, and while I found a previous discussion about breakinglatest.news, an alternate source was found for that topic. I can't find any other source covering this one, so I reverted the topic, but I figured I should report it here, just to be sure I'm making the right move. miranda ^:3 02:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It's LLM written dross. See this where there was an error generating an article. There's also piles of ads as articles, no editorial board or bylines. Unreliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

And another one where the article is pasted into the title field. I don't usually like to endorse things for the blacklist on such short notice, but this really does seem like a giant pile of shit. jp×g🗯️ 23:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Breakinglatest.news   shows that we have over 60 uses for this source. I think given the LLM stuff there's no need for deprecation and it should go straight onto the blacklist as spam. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Superastig's usage of first party references

I've reached out to @Superastig: to refrain from posting first party references from articles with mostly first party references which all came from the same Facebook account.[84] The editor ignored my message from their talkpage and removed it, without directly responding to my concerns. This editor continues to post first party facebook links in different Wikipedia articles.[85][86][87][88][89]. Posting first party references from social media accounts is against WP:SPS TheHotwiki (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be the Facebook account of GMA Network who broadcast the programmes in those articles. It's not a great source but WP:ABOUTSELF allows for this type of referencing, -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

What about the ratings itself? Surely that needs to be provided by a third party source, instead of the Facebook account of the network broadcasting these shows. I've reviewed the episodes section of those article, and they have no other source for its reference, other than the Facebook account of the network (GMA Network) broadcasting those shows. TheHotwiki (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Am I missing something in the edits I don't see any ratings being added. Any ratings or other such claims would need secondary sourcing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

For the past several months, you never bat an eye whenever anyone, including me, updates the episode titles of every TV series with the kind of sources you indicated. I'm puzzled as to why you got triggered about it today.

There's really nothing wrong with update the episode titles of every GMA TV series. I never claim ownership of every episode list I create. Yet, you seem to get in the way by making strict rules, from not having a separate page for episode lists to requiring us to indicate sources of every episode title. Meanwhile, several editors update the episode titles of every ABS CBN TV series, List of Batang Quiapo episodes and List of Dirty Linen episodes without posting sources about the episode titles.

You've made a big deal out of this issue for a very long time. And it's clear that you don't want anyone to create episode lists or update episode titles of every GMA TV series. Nothing personal. I'm just being honest. ASTIG😎🙃 12:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from resorting personal attacks. You're accusing me of things I didn't do or say. Do you have evidence that that will prove that I don't want anyone to create episode lists or update episode titles of every Gma TV series? TheHotwiki (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

How am I resorting to personal attacks when I'm just being honest with what I said? Common sense, men. We've had this kind of argument numerous times.

This started sometime in August 2021 with Ang Dalawang Ikaw. You nominated its episode list for deletion, in which the list ended up getting merged. With this move, you prompted me to stop creating a separate page for episode lists for every TV series upon its launch.

Not long after, in the same page, you reverted by update and said "again post a reference, you've been told many times to add references". We even had an argument about it. Prior to that, you never reminded anyone to do such. With this move, you prompted me to add a reference everytime I update an episode title.

These prove that you get in the way of creating/updating episode titles of every GMA TV series.

This is never a personal attack. Not even an accusation. All of these were based on our past arguments. And it's the truth and nothing but the truth no matter what. ASTIG😎🙃 14:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You were making separate articles for TV shows, when the article for the TV series themselves weren't even long to warrant a separate article for episodes. It was the main reason why I nominated that article for deletion. You are accusing me of "not wanting a list of episodes and not wanting anyone to update episode titles", which are both false. If I didn't want a list of episodes, all your contributions when it comes to episodes list would have been deleted a long time ago. You were asked to provide third party references in those episodes section (since there wasn't any), which you failed to do so. I brought this issue here, since you didn't cooperate when I messaged you in your talk page and you just removed my message in your talk page. Now you're spewing false accusations toward me, which is a form of a personal attack. How is that civil? TheHotwiki (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• This seems less like a discussion for RSN and more one for ANI, as it's essentially entirely about editor behavior rather than discussion of sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Request additonal eyes to review refs

These three refs have recently been attached to an entry on the list of Longest recorded sniper kills, (currently ranked first), as well as in some of the article's prose. While I know some of these sites are generally accepted as reliable, I'm not so sure about their reliability in supporting the content there after further evaluation of them. Would appreciate some extra eyes to take a look. Thanks - wolf 05:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

refs

• Thewolfchild already requested extra eyes at Longest recorded sniper kills... Specifically pinging me on the talk page and requesting I review the entry[90]... Apparently they didn't like what I had to say because they decided to edit war and jump venues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• The Independent is a good quality source, I can't see any reason to doubt it. Also as four of the references used for other entries in that article are undefined error messages the referencing for this entry is doing well.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Agreed. If we accept the premise that "longest recorded sniper kills" is a meaningfully confirmable record, the sourcing for this entry appears to be just as good as the others in the table – and better than several. The Independent is normally a reliable source; unless other reliable sources have actively cast doubt on the validity of this claim it seems to have just as good a claim to inclusion as anything else in the list. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• Just to clarify, I'm not asking if the source itself is unreliable, just the specific report, for this specific entry. (If an editor wishes to examine the sources for a different entry and ask asistance, they're free to. But to say "the other entries sourcing isn't very good, so give this a pass", is not very helpful.) The Independent relies on a post from Messenger, an SPS, and comments from a primary source. Newsweek states they: "could not independently verify this information nor the video, and has reached out to the SBU and Russia's defense ministry for additional comment.", and the Kyev Idenpendent relies on a "local source", which is also a post on the Telegram Messenger app, an SPS. So I'm asking if these specific reports are acceptable sourcing. Note, I had first posted about this to the article talk page (as we're supposed to), but after several days, only received a response from two editors, one that only addressed another entry on the list, and the second that only addressed one of the sources, so I came here. Thanks again for any assistance. - wolf 14:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  My point on the other references wasn't on their reliability it is that four of them don't exist they are just error messages. My other comments still stand the Independent is reliable, and I very much doubt any of the other claims have been independently verified (unless someone from the Guinness book of records was there adjudicating). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

using your own cloud for providing documents which cannot be found otherwise in the web.

In a recent discussion on Talk:Space Race#German influence on Soviet space program @SchmiAlf has confirmed he has been using his own cloud website at “owncloud.birkenwald.de” for providing documents which cannot be found otherwise in the web. Appears SchmiAlf has done this for articles and talk pages. Examples I have identified include:

German influence on the Soviet space program

• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/KwbxkbCmynYMfPs

Talk:Space Race, Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program & Helmut Gröttrup

• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/NWbxo4XkpW86WfC
• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/QD7rdfAXcMrfWps
• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/o8TDDTKN3NH3PFr

I assume that these are not reliable sources as per WP:RS and WP:USG, but would like other Editors views.

I also invite @SchmiAlf to provide comments, including an explanation of how he obtained this information, plus disclose any other articles / talk pages he has used his own cloud website to provide information. Ilenart626 (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Can it be conformed these documents are genuine? Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a bad idea at first glance. Selfstudier (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

With no provenance to show where the documents came from, and no way to verify that they are genuine they are unusable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Here are some relevant points from the assessment of Wikileaks as a source. "Some editors believe that documents from WikiLeaks fail the verifiability policy, because WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate them, and there are concerns regarding whether the documents are genuine or tampered. ... [L]inking to material that violates copyright is prohibited by WP:COPYLINK". Burrobert (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup. Obvious copyright concerns, and absolutely no means to verify the material. Cannot under any circumstances be cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

But these are not from Wikileaks (a third party), but from a Wikipedia editor. An argument could be made that Wikileaks as a publisher is reliable (not an argument I would necessarily agree with), but a Wikipedia editor is defacto not considered reliable for sourcing purposes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• It’s not so simple. Remember that there is no requirement that a source be on-line.

So… A LOT depends on where the editor found these documents. Did he find them in his grandmother’s attic, or in a publicly accessible and cataloged archive (such as a university library)? If the latter, THAT ARCHIVE is what should be cited. A scan can sometimes be included with the citation as a “courtesy link”, but it is the ORIGINAL that gets cited. The reputation of the archiving venue is what determines whether they are authentic (and thus reliable) or not (a university would have a good reputation for authenticating documents, your grandmother would not).

That said, no matter where they were found, these documents would be considered primary sources… with all the cautions and restrictions that apply to the use of primary sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. Regarding https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/XTAeeiz4wfbS3X7 SchmiAlf has advised “The Zvezda document was handed over as a printed copy to Ursula Gröttrup, Helmut Gröttrup's daugther who grew up on Gorodomlya.” . I’ll let him provide details of the other documants. Ilenart626 (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

That would be akin to “found in my grandmother’s attic” and not considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Overwhelming reactions, indeed. All of them are courtesy links to make these documents available for Wikipedia users and discussions. None of them is my own work or own source. In detail this is explained as follows:

German influence on the Soviet space program

• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/KwbxkbCmynYMfPs

This document can be publicly found in the archive of the Deutsches Museum as part of "Nachlass Helmut Gröttrup (NL 281)" (Gröttrup's inhereditary), see also DM archive info 2/2017

Talk:Space Race, Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program & Helmut Gröttrup

• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/NWbxo4XkpW86WfC

This is the transcript of Ursula Gröttrup's commemorative address on behalf of her fathers 100th anniversary (held on Feb 3, 2017).

• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/QD7rdfAXcMrfWps

This is the transcript of Olaf Przybilski's commemorative address on behalf of Helmut Gröttrup's 100th anniversary (held on Feb 3, 2017).

• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/o8TDDTKN3NH3PFr

This is the Russian Zvezda document "70 Years Gorodomlya" together with a German translation. The pure Russian version is available via Звездные страницы and was scanned from an original which was handed over to Ursula Gröttrup. Unfortunately, the document was never published on the web. However, an 2016 archived version of the Zwezda plant news is available here to reference this 70 years event.

To add for future discussions:

• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/24bT4cP4f2xLCYR

Helmut Gröttrup's publication of April 1958 "Aus den Arbeiten des deutschen Raketenkollektivs in der Sowjet-Union" in DGRR (also part of "Nachlass Helmut Gröttrup (NL 281)" and now fully quoted in Helmut Gröttrup#Publications

• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/BHp4MDDZZTcGnpG

Helmut Gröttrup's 1959 publication "Über Raketen - Allgemeinverständliche Einführung in Physik und Technik der Rakete" (About rockets - General introduction to the physics and technology of rockets) (also part of "Nachlass Helmut Gröttrup (NL 281)" and fully quoted in Helmut Gröttrup#Publications

Due to Wikipedia guidelines, none of these documents could be shared via Wikipedia Commons. --SchmiAlf (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, even WP:PRIMARY sources must meet this requirement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It's absolutely within the remit of policy to cite offline sources. If something hasn't been published online, we can just cite it to wherever it has been published, and whether the person citing it happens to provide a convenience URL is immaterial (whether it goes to nasa.gov, imageshack.us or whatwhatinthebutt.cheapsupplements.biz.su). If the things are part of some archived collection, well: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition_of_published. We have articles that cite treatises from the 1600s and newspaper articles from the 1800s, et cetera. If they've been published, then they should be cited, and if homeslice wants to give convenience URLs we should be thankful for it. If they haven't been published, then they shouldn't be cited, and the URLs don't matter either way. jp×g🗯️ 22:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Offline sources are of course fine, any URL even one to an article on a website is still only for convenience (with title and website name you should still be able to find it). But I don't think it's clear here whether all of these have ever been published. If they have then it's not an issue, but the question isn't about them just being offline. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

How many of these links breach WP:ELNEVER re copyvio (are they so old they are public domain), and if they don't have copyright release from the original holder, should they even be linked on this page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Is http://afe.easia.columbia.edu a reliable source for info on asian history?

I've been trying to find a reliable source for the Mongol Battle Standard shown in vexilla mundi, and this website has an article on just that. Is this website a reliable source? Sci Show With Moh (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)