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. 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

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)

  Evidence stands taller with some actual links for verification. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 26 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)

Option 4 - A) Electronic Intifada is a partisan news site that has a recent and long history of biased partisan reporting and appears to be pursuing political goals through its newspapers.

It also appears that it seems to support armed struggle and removal of organizations deemed terrorist by Western countries from terror lists.

In August 2020, Electronic Intifada published an article by Samidoun coordinator Khaled Barakat, there they wrote “Association with the Palestinian armed resistance and its political parties is not a cause for shame or a justification for repression…boycott campaigns and popular organizing are not alternatives to armed resistance but interdependent tactics of struggle. Any meaningful defense of the Palestinian people must clearly uphold the right to resist colonialism by all means, including armed struggle – and support efforts to remove Palestinian resistance groups from lists of ‘terrorist organizations.’”

Ali Abunimah, the site’s co-founder and current executive director, stated the following regarding Zionism : “one of the worst forms of anti-Semitism [sic] in existence today” and claims that it is the “continuation in spirit” of the Holocaust. Abunimah has compared Israel to Nazi Germany [1] , he also commented the following on a Holocaust survivor (called Elie Wiesel a “moral fraud and huckster”).

Furthermore, from an article in 18 January 2023 it appears the EI supports the incorporation of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, considered terrorist organizations by US, EU... into the PLO.

"But for that storm to sweep away the old, it needs direction. So far, Palestinian discontent with their leaders has not thrown up any clear alternative strategy behind which parties and new political forces can agree to unite.

Any such strategy needs to answer several crucial questions, notably what outcome to seek and how best to get there, how to unite the main factions behind a new vision for Palestinian liberation and how to ensure that Palestinians in occupied territory can endure under different political conditions.

It will also need to find a way to incorporate Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other factions considered “terror groups” in the west into the PLO while managing the diplomatic and financial fallout."

In November 2022, EI hosted a podcast called “How Zionists collaborated with the Nazis.” in the podcast, “Zionists during that time not only were not bothered about the Holocaust, they actively tried to stop anyone who wanted to provide a refuge from doing so.”

In August 2022, Abunimah has said the following in an interview : “Israel always has to kill Palestinians because it is an illegitimate settler-colonial regime that faces constant resistance from the people whose land it is occupying, colonizing and stealing…the regular shedding of Palestinian blood is a necessary component of maintaining the existence of Israel.”

In June 2021, EI Associate Editor Nora Barrows participated in a conference, “Challenging Apartheid in Palestine: Reclaiming the Narrative, Formulating A Vision,” hosted by the Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University. It was reported that sponsors, participating and conference , were linked to various terror groups, including, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

In conclusion, Option 4 is the most relevant, considering EI's published content both historically as concluded in previous Reliable Sources discussions as well as recently as shown above; therefore one assumes that this source meets the criteria of Deprecation. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat: I'm sorry. What is the point behind the quotations above? You just quote passages without making any points about how they relate to reliability. "one assumes that this source meets the criteria of Deprecation." - don't assume: assumption was the problem with the prior discussion, and now you're copy-pasting the problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. All the above shows is that EI's ideological leaning is pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. Opinions are always a matter of debate and can't be used for fact anyway (given WP:RSEDITORIAL) and you haven't shown any evidence of getting the facts wrong. VR _talk 15:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 Features section only, anything else only if it is a subject matter expert, and always with attribution. I don't believe that this source is guilty of falsification but some material is fairly heavily biased, so use with due care and attention.Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3. They don't seem to do much original reporting. I give them 3 rather than 4 for the odd story that might serve as a useful justification for a statement, but I cannot see that happening very often. Most of their articles seem to be either one-sided reinterpretation of the news reported elsewhere or personal opinions. Epa101 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RFC Where is the prior discussion? Why is this going to a RfC without a recent discussion or a discussion of how this source is being used? We need examples of misuse before starting a RfC.

Springee (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 (possibly 2): There are a number of major issues with EI, which it is better to see as a group blog rather than a news site. First, it does not adequately distinguish between opinion and news (it has a category "features" which has /news in its URL and a category "opinion and analysis" with /opinion in the url; both of these are mainly opinion).The simple additional consideration would be to treat all articles as opinion pieces and therefore attribute. Second, it rarely presents new factual information. The "features" pieces by guest contributors in Palestine count as reportage, which are the most useful and fact-based articles, but the "features" pieces by their own (mostly US-based) team are second-hand analysis of material reported elsewhere. I would say that this secondary material should not be used citing them but rather that the original source should be used if and only if it's reliable (many of its sources are very unreliable, e.g. deprecated Grayzone), and that EI is not sufficiently reliable for it to count towards assessing noteworthiness. (Unsurprisingly, disinformation and conspiracy sites also republish EI articles. E.g. David Icke's website carried an EI article "How the Israel lobby fakes anti-Semitism" by Asa Winstanley.[2]) Third, I think that this is one of those cases where bias and reliability bleed into each other: EI frequently goes into conspiracy theory territory (this is especially true of its associate editor Asa Winstanley).[3] For instance, its support of antisemitic conspiracy theorist David Miller has led to its reportage being described as antisemitic by the Community Security Trust (CST),[4] and CST and anti-fascist researchers Hope Not Hate have described its reporting of Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party as conspiracy theory.[5] Winstanley frequently appears on Iran's PressTV, on a show produced by David Miller dedicated to antisemitic conspiracy theories.[6] Fourth, I think there might be instances where it can be seen to have been actively dishonest. In 2011, along with the Guardian, it falsely claimed that the CST had made up some quotes; the Guardian corrected their story but EI didn't.[7] Several right-wing monitors (CAMERA, HonestReporting, etc) have presented further examples, but I'm reviewing those as I don't see them as reliable sources either. I'll come back here when I have, and if these claims are compelling I'd say option 3 for definite, otherwise option 2 might be fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Couple more data points. 1. Here are three biased (right-wing), probably unreliable and slightly outdated sources itemising several issues with EI: NGO Monitor,[8] HonestReporting,[9] CAMERA.[10] It's hard to disentangle political criticisms from exposing inaccuracies there, so I'll leave these for other editors to review themselves. 2. I hadn't realised the extent to which EI is integrated with sources that we deprecate. For instance, it heavily uses Al-Mayadeen as a source,[11][12] it is in turn hosted by Al-Mayadeen,[13] it gives a frequent platform to Max Blumenthal of Grayzone,[14] its staff also contribute to Sputnik, ZeroHedge, Russia Insider, MintPress, etc,[15] and are used as talking heads by Sputnik.[16] In this PolitiFact fact check of a fake news story circulated in the current Gaza conflict, by a far right anti-vaxxer, EI was one of the sources he shared, but the fact check does not actually describe the EI article as false. 3. On the other hand, I've found a couple of instances of its use as a source by reliable sources: Columbia Journalism Review from 2010,[17] Associated Press from 2013,[18] and India Today recently.[19] BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm mainly interested in if EI has been guilty of false reporting or antisemitism, and I tried following your first few links and I didn't get the sense. First, I'd take CST's allegations against EI with a grain of salt; given that CST believes anti-zionism=antisemitism they are the ideological opponents of EI. And as you correctly pointed out, HonestReporting, CAMERA etc also have an axe to grind against EI. VR _talk 15:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 per Nableezy and Bob above, and Alaexis below. While not outright lying (as far as I'm aware), and while yes, all sources are biased, EI's partisan to the point that its usefulness can be heavily questioned (see exaggeration, loaded language, reliance on questionable sources, omission of certain details, and so on) and most if not all of its factual reporting can be found in far more reliable, less-outright-partisan sources. I'm also not sold by the proposer's usage of MBFC, which they themselves bluntly state isn't entirely reliable. The Kip 08:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  Would also like to emphasize the latter bits of what Bob's written - the heavy reliance on already-deprecated sources such as Grayzone and Al-Mayadeen is worrying, and I could probably be convinced to vote for deprecation here as well. The Kip 05:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3, see my comments below re the lack of separation between opinion and news and various outrageous claims made by the source. No evidence has been presented that changed my opinion in either direction. Alaexis_¿question? 08:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3

EI is an overtly biased outlet and as pointed out by other editors, it deploys conspiratorial websites as its sources. This makes that website unreliable. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 4. Mostly-opinion sites that cite debunked tweets should not be used in WP. All the true info EI has is better reported by other sources. It should not be used. Zanahary (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

One debunked tweet has been mentioned - if there are others; perhaps you could make mention of them. However, one embedded (not even voiced) debunked tweet alone does not demonstrate repeat inaccuracy and is far from approaching cause for deprecation. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• 4, unreliable and slanted beyond repair. if EI is the only source where someone can find something covered, it has likely been fabricated. ValarianB (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 3. The outlet has the word "intifada" in the name. That alone makes it clear this is an option 3. Cursory reading of the sources provided by Homerethegreat makes it obvious this is far too biased to be trusted. Citing it in an article would be like citing Stormfront. The reason why we don't cite biased websites that support violent terrorists is because they have a very strong incentive to lie. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 2. Per Iskander323's discussion point below it seems like at least some of the content EI publishes is well-sourced and journalistic and given that reputable journalists publish with EI it seems unlikely that they publish outright fabrications as if they are news. The organization overall has a clear agenda, but it is important to recognize that that many other sources taken as reliable are likely either to lack coverage of Palestinian issues or to (intentionally or not) have coverage slanted against Palestinians. Groceryheist (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 based on publishing stuff like this. Cheers, Number 57 21:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  What is the specific point of inaccuracy that is being pointed to here that is indicative of unreliability? An uncommon, but by no means isolated headline take, regardless of the level of controversy is not – in of itself – anything. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Mondoweiss (your link) isn't a reliable source either. The mass rape claims are agreed upon by all the reliable sources I could find. The BBC, NBC news, The New York Times, AP news, and The Washington Post agree that there is evidence that rape happened. When extremely pro-Palestinian biased sources such as Mondoweiss or Electronic Intifada construct fictional realities where Palestinians didn't rape Israelis, because that is inconvenient for their POV, that's when we consider those sources unreliable due to their ideological bias. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Compare like with like. Mondoweiss is fine with attribution (they don't make stuff up) and your links do not support "mass rape" (and are in addition hedged about with one caveat and another) which is what M. is saying there is a lack of evidence for. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Since this isn't a discussion on Mondoweiss I'll avoid encouraging the tangent further, but EI lied that it was the Israeli govt that did October 7th. [20] [21] There's also the borderline Holocaust denial where EI lauds a book that blames Zionist Jews for the Holocaust. [22] EI also supported the October 7th attacks. [23]

  IMHO it's pretty simple. This is an identical situation to The Daily Shoah or The Daily Stormer. EI pushes conspiracy theories, deny well-evidenced atrocities (mass rapes), engage in Holocaust inversion (especially by saying the Jews brought it among themselves), and even supported October 7th on that very day. That makes it an unreliable source. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is far closer to a misrepresention of those pieces than it is to an accurate summary of their contents. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 at least and probably Option 4. The specific falsehoods mentioned above aside, EI has a long reputation of providing misleading coverage, and if used, needs to be used with caution if at all. There's nothing, if at all, that EI would report on or cover that a more mainstream RS, even one that is biased, would not. When called out the outlet does not reliably issue corrections, but in some cases doubles down. For example, misquoting a misleading and incendiary quote from an Israeli official, then claiming others misquoted first instead of doing basic journalism and seeking to verify [24], mistranslations of Hebrew interviews that make exceptional claims [25] (then portraying it as reported fact instead of opinion on its Twitter [26]. It frequently relies on conspiracy rags like The Cradle and The Greyzone for single-sources and misleading reporting. There are many other examples. Editors voted to deprecate another activist outlet MEMRI for similar malpractice, even though EI pruportedly holds itself to a higher journalistic standard. I have no problem with biased sources, but there are far more and better ones than EI, which is more activist than journalist and misleading at best. Longhornsg (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Can you cite any RS that have accused EI of false or misleading reporting? VR _talk 15:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 per Longhornsg. It's too biased and unreliable to be used. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Per @Marokwitz. Dovidroth (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 Biased, unreliable, advocacy website. Coretheapple (talk) 22:18, 18 December 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 [27]? 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)

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)

Just to be clear, my suggested Option 2 does not put it on the same level as the Daily Mail. It would still be two levels above the Mail. There would be no need to delete every Telegraph reference: it just loses its golden image. On propaganda, it should be noted that its close links to Boris Johnson made it very partisan during his premiership, and it has gone outside the mainstream since Borus was ejected. It's not the Torygraph any more. Epa101 (talk) 13:15, 25 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)

• Comment: My impression is that The Daily Telegraph is generally reliable for news reporting. As with other news sources, opinion pieces are not relevant to our evaluation of the source's reliability for factual reporting. Many news outlets do not fact-check their opinion pieces to the same standard as reporting; this is why WP:RSEDITORIAL says that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely reliable for statements of fact." —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I think Boynamedsue analysis is correct here. It's totally normal for a major newspaper with a lot of content to have IPSO complaints upheld and to issue corrections. Although IPSO is very imperfect, the fact the paper succumbs to regulation and acts on findings against it counts in its favour in terms of reliability. If there were a significant number of news. Given these corrections mostly relate to opinion and a headline and/or were only partially upheld shows that there is no cause to move from the current option 1 status. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1: no change - there seems no substantive change here to make for any change to the "Generally" reliable. IPSO issues had happened prior to the 2022 rating, and having another 7 problems among some hundreds or thousands of pieces since still seems "Generally" reliable. That they occurred in opinion pieces and were responded to by editorial staff seems further mitigation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 effectively per Mx. Granger. It seems most of the issues are with opinion pieces, which, besides having been IPSO-corrected, aren't typically relevant to our considerations of reliability. While biased, I don't see a reason to no longer consider it "generally" reliable. The Kip 08:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1. The issues were mostly with opinion pieces, and many cases are borderline (see Boynamedsue's analysis). Also, the initiator of the RfC failed to provide any evidence that these issues caused problems on Wikipedia. Alaexis_¿question? 09:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't think that I needed to. We didn't need to say that the Morning Star (opposite end of the political spectrum) is causing lots of problems on Wikipedia to give it a lower reliability score. Epa101 (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Please see the instructions at the top of this noticeboard. Alaexis_¿question? 21:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

* Option 2 All media outlets are biased, but this is one that wears it on their sleeve more than the best ones do. Reliable for mundane reporting, but any summary of complex events should be considered editorial. Sennalen (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 1. Only 7 IPSO complaints about mostly opinion pieces? Our policies about reliable sources are clear that they're allowed to make a few mistakes as long as they have a working corrections policy. Voluntarily joining an arms' length self regulatory organization is exactly what we want sources to do. The Guardian and The Independent aren't members of IPSO, can we downgrade them? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 Generally Reliable largely per the analysis by Boynamedsue. Opinion pieces are already treated differently, and the handful of errors otherwise noted are not outside of the norm for pretty much any reputable news/media source. They have a right leaning editorial slant. Big deal. MSNBC leans left and has likely produced a similar level of mistakes. When it comes to factual reporting, for the most part they seem to have their act together. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 Boynamedsue's analysis shows that the content provided as evidence covers material that we wouldn't use anyway and official corrections were made where necessary – it's not a flawless publication, but what is? EddieHugh (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1/BADRFC It's pretty clear to me that downgrading the Telegraph to WP:MREL over this would be holding it to a ridiculously high double-standard. They issued corrections, it's fine. If it isn't, we should have an RFC to downgrade every media organization out there. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 is more reasonable. As stated by various editors above, all' sources require at least some 'other considerations', but there is nothing on current showing to prove that this news outlets is anything other than generally reliable. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 Sources that make twice as many mistakes haven't been downgraded. I don't see how this is any different Scorpions1325 (talk) 05:49, 21 December 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 ([28], [29], [30]) are related to the Telegraph's news coverage, of which one ([31]) 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)

I suggest leaving ideas of press freedom to one side, as that is a big can of worms. There are some restrictions in the USA that don't apply in the UK, such as the rules on foreign ownership. A lot of our national papers are owned by people with little connection to the UK. On its reliability, I'm not saying to treat it worse than every other newspaper. I'm questioning why we put it on a pedestal at present. My suggested Option 2 only knocks it down one rung. Epa101 (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'd say we should wait and see whether The Telegraph is acquired by the Emiratis (which is currently under discussion). Once that has happened and some time is passed, a RfC is probably appropriate considering the UAE's track record regarding freedom of the press. Cortador (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
• FWIW, I'd put most British news outlets under Option 2 when it comes to GENSEX issues because there is a well-known culture of transphobia in the British press that has been covered by non-British sources, but that's probably a minority opinion; I should point out that Option 1 doesn't mean always reliable, just generally reliable; there are possible times where that generality can be overridden by specific concerns. With regards to the Telegraph... it's been on a slow downward slope for a long time, but I wouldn't change it from Option 1 to 2 just yet. Sceptre (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Great Russian Encyclopedia Online

The Great Russian Encyclopedia Online (bigenc.ru), including its old version (old.bigenc.ru), is linked in over 100 en.Wikipedia articles.[32] The source appears to be repeating blatant non-WP:NPOV Russian propaganda and should be deprecated as an independent neutral WP:RS.

To cite a few obvious examples:

• Russia[33] has a map showing its borders extending into parts of Ukraine that have been “annexed,” and not even occupied
• Ukraine[34] has a map that omits its Crimean peninsula
• Zaporizhzhia,[35] a Ukrainian city that Russian invasion forces have been unable to reach, is defined as in the Russian Federation

Who knows what less obvious disinformation is in the articles of this political propaganda website masquerading as an academic source? It is not reliable and should not be used for any citations.  —Michael Z. 17:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

A source can be biased, occasionally wrong, and still be reliable. I take it that the information in the three listed bullet points are not being used as sources for an article. Are there any specific instances in the ~120 articles where its use is actually problematic? Banks Irk (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

These represent a Russian point of view, rather than a factual inaccuracy. It is a minority POV, and not reliable for articles except as examples of how the Ukraine situation is seen by Russians, but it does not affect the overall reliability of the source.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

A Kremlin POV, subject to political censorship on all subjects, and likely with a mandate to disinform, as it’s published by a Russian government organization (RAS) to satisfy Putin’s decree No. 1156. It was already criticized for its content (Great Russian Encyclopedia#Criticism) before Russia sunk into complete dictatorship.

And as a tertiary source, nothing important should be based on it in the first place.

These blatant things are factual inaccuracies from the WP:FRINGE and contrary to academic consensus. Certainly anything regarding the former subject nations of the Russian and Soviet empires, their histories, WWII, and international relations. In other fields the bias is probably more subtle and harder to detect, and biases of omission impossible to identify.  —Michael Z. 21:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

These are exactly the same as the maps that a dozen countries publish showing their own preferred borders, rather than those recognised under international law or de facto control. As I said, we would not use them except to illustrate the perspective of the Russian government on its frontiers. I don't think WP:FRINGE comes into it, it is more like WP:DUE. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree. There is nothing unusual about these kinds of biased in partisan sources. They're not false or contrary to "academic consensus", they reflect a decidedly minority, politically motivated POV. As a tertiary source, its use as a source has limits. But again, I'm waiting for an example of a real live dispute over how it is actually used as a source in a specific article. Asking for deprecation absent a live dispute or prior RSN discussion is unwarranted and premature. Banks Irk (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly the same as what? This purports to be an encyclopedia.  —Michael Z. 04:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources published in Pakistan or India frequently show their preferred borders, rather than those accepted internationally. As do those published in China. Many reliable sources published in Argentina show the Falkland Islands and South Georgia as part of their territory. Reliable sources published in Israel sometimes show the occupied territories as part of Israel. Reliable sources published in Catalonia frequently show an entity called "The Catalan Countries" which does not and has never existed, or show Catalonia as a separate country on maps.

These sources are not reliable for neutral statements on the borders of their countries, but these are political positions rather than false claims. On their own, they do not reduce the credibility of other information in the sources. They are a good indication of the source's bias, but we need biased sources.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

You present a good argument for why it shouldn't be used for post-2014 Ukraine topics (an argument I concur with), but not why it should be fully deprecated. Curbon7 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I am now seeing that the online version seems to be in part different than the print version, the latter having ended publication in 2017. Curbon7 (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Russia’s official fringe views definitely cover the entirety of the history of Russia, Ukraine, and other nations colonized by and in conflict with the current Kremlin régime. See, e.g., “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” by Vladimir Putin who is very interested in history and promoting his Russian-fascist version of it. As you can see, the online article on Ukraine was updated after the occupation of Crimea in 2014, and the article on Russia after further occupation in 2022. The online version will probably continue to be updated to keep “improving” it.  —Michael Z. 21:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I also think that essays by Vladimir Putin are not reliable sources for historical facts, but I don't think this is the most pertinent comment to the question at hand.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

This is published to conform with a decree by the same Putin, to satisfy his same goals. It is unreliable for the same fundamental reason.  —Michael Z. 17:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Again though, are there example of this source fabricating information about anything that is not post-2014 Ukraine topics? Curbon7 (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• Deprecate Clearly does not pass WP:RS. Unfortunately, there is not a lot that comes out of Russia these days that does. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Deprecate I wonder what valuable info about topics not related to Russia can we take from the "Great Russian Encyclopedia". As for topics related to Russia, as it is published by a state entity, I don't think we can trust it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Per comments by other users I am striking my former !vote as it might be inappropriate to fully deprecate the source. Still I think there must be some regulation on the use of the encyclopedia. "additional considerations apply" status is likely appropriate. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Deprecate as it is not even close to a WP:RS. -Amigao (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. Additional considerations apply, depending on specific subject. But it is Generally unreliable on topics related to politics, history and geography. Well, it says [36]: "Zaporizhzhia, the city in Russian Federation ". Not only this is Ukraine, but it was never occupied by Russian forces. This is not just a "point of view", but misleading geography. I understand the source is online, and it is frequently updated. Which makes it even worse, i.e. the source intentionally provides incorrect info. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

In terms of reliability, this is similar to a blog. Some articles have a name of the author(s). They are just as reliable as the reputation of the authors. Other articles have no name of author. They should be disregarded. My very best wishes (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it’s not. There is a government mandate to become an “alternative to Wikipedia” and a source of “reliable information” “unlike Wikipedia,”[37] there is a chief editor who belongs to the government organization Russian Academy of Sciences, and Russian censorship and memory laws.  —Michael Z. 19:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I did not see it. Interesting. So, this is a censored patriotic encyclopedia. Still, like I said, the articles are just as reliable as reputation of their authors. My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I think participation in propaganda affects the authors’ reputation, and not vice versa.  —Michael Z. 15:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems that most articles on "non-political" subjects are just as good or even better than they would be in other tertiary sources. They are not propaganda. The problem is that some articles seemingly on non-political subjects (such as this one) provide intentional misinformation. But that particular misinformation can be easily fixed by cross-verifying against other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No, you’re only noting that some disinformation is easily found. That is not evidence that everything else in the text is reliable and somehow free of influence by the same propaganda mandate. It is evidence that this source is intentionally disinformative.

Why the impulse to “cross-verify” instead of just using other sources? That’s like continuing to patronize a restaurant because it was easy to spot the dog food and poop in some of the menu items.  —Michael Z. 18:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: if [i]t seems that most articles on "non-political" subjects are just as good or even better than they would be in other tertiary sources it's because in many cases they are. Plenty of articles are written by individuals who we could consider among the foremost specialists in their respective fields. Not all of them are Russian, either. To point to an example where we are actually using this source, our article on Novogrudok uses the GRE's entry on Lithuanian prince Mindaugas (the city was under his rule). The article in question was written by Rimvydas Petrauskas, current rector of Vilnius University. I won't be the one to call him a Putinist hack. Ostalgia (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• So, no evidence shown that it is unreliable for most topics, only problematic for Russia–Ukraine war, where it has not been used as a source. Can someone show where it is actually cited[38] for false information? In any case, tertiary sources are not the best sources. Mellk (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. Quickly looking, I could not find any other obvious examples. My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Straw man argument. Even if it contains factual information, it is extremely biased and non-neutral (to greatly understate the case). One can use facts and omissions to make all kinds of bad arguments and paint misleading pictures.

This “encyclopedia” promulgates the political POV of a dictatorship credibly accused of inciting genocide and committing genocide. The sooner we completely drop this hot potato the better.  —Michael Z. 03:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No, you have not demonstrated that it is unreliable for most topics and therefore needs to be deprecated. Even if it contains factual information, it is extremely biased and non-neutral. Please demonstrate this. Mellk (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• I checked a few pages on subjects I am familiar with. Interestingly, pages on all recent "hot" subjects (wars in Chechnya and Ukraine) are simply missing. Looking at older history, such as [39], it includes disinformation on certain key points. For example, text starting from "Поскольку в протоколе не упоминаются какие-либо возможные действия сторон в отношении расположенных между ними государств, он юридически не нарушал никаких договорённостей Германии или СССР с третьими странами и прямо не предусматривал никаких реальных территориальных изменений." is atrocious propaganda, even "big lie". This is pretty much FRINGE at best. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Some of the missing articles may be at old.bigenc.ru.  —Michael Z. 16:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. But it was not the worst. Consider this version about Winter war. Unfortunately, I can not substantially discuss these subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Each of these examples are entirely consistent with the extensively-documented Soviet/Russian narrative and national mythology of its own role in WW2. We wouldn't use them other than for showing the Russian perspective on these events. And, as it turns out, non-one is using this source in any article even for that.Banks Irk (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree. First of all, there is no such thing as "Russian perspective". Different Russian authors have very different views on these historical subjects (author of the first article is Meltukov with quite peculiar views on certain issues). Also, no, this is not a standard Soviet narrative. That old Soviet narrative simply denied the existence of the secret protocols/addition (as far as I remember Soviet textbooks did not mention their existence). My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

There certainly are Russian imperial, Soviet, and Russian Federation perspectives, and they are well documented. They have not been constant for centuries, but they have differences but also share the similarities in their biases, blind spots, and prejudices. This is more true again now than at any time since perestroika, as the RF has criminalized certain speech with vague strictures that force anyone in Russia to self-censor or risk oppression.  —Michael Z. 15:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Mzajac, How in the world is that a straw man argument? You saying that simply brushes away the very valid argument Mellk is trying to make without substantively answering it. To deprecate a source, we need hard proof it is engaged in misinfo, not just vague handwaving. Thank you to MVBW for providing examples. Curbon7 (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

True information on a number of topics is illegal in Russia, and contrary to the goals of the Russian government (and the determination of what’s illegal is arbitrary). It clearly publishes disinfo, potentially in any online article. My argument is we should use other sources to source the encyclopedia, not to fact-check every single statement on this source because we want to cite it for some reason. Furthermore, it is deeply invested in bias which can be conveyed through emphasis, omission, selective presentation, etc., which we cannot really fact-check. I believe it’s a strawman to say this is a safe source to use because I’ve only demonstrated it’s unreliable in one article. It’s not a general encyclopedia, but a Russian encyclopedia deeply invested in disinformation on its entire range of subjects on Russia and anything related, and it’s only being put online specifically as an “alternative” to neutral sources that promotes these views.  —Michael Z. 17:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Deprecate per above. Seems to be fully engaged in Russian-government POV-pushing, and we've already deprecated numerous other sources that do the same. The Kip 03:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning towards deprecation, or at least general unreliability. The examples given above by MVBW are more than sufficient to prove that this website actively includes disinformation in their articles, in addition to unclear authorship. I'm not sure this applies to the print encyclopedia, as it ceased physical publication in 2017 and may thus be free of the more egregious disinfo. Curbon7 (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Striking, as I clearly do not know enough yet about the situation to make a fully engaged statement. Curbon7 (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Additional considerations apply, with specific unreliability for Ukraine topics, seems to be the best course of action here. I don't see a need to blow the whole thing up as most of its current uses are for anodyne quoditian purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Just a question for the people who are voting deprecate here (this is not a vote btw), would you deprecate all sources which made claims about the borders of their state which are not internationally recognised? Boynamedsue (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  A: it depends.  —Michael Z. 17:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. On what?Boynamedsue (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

On the specifics of any case under consideration. Elsewhere in this talk section I have described some of the specifics of this case which lead me to conclude this source is not only unreliable on certain identifiable facts, but to its core. In summary: its reason for existence is to propagate a biased and destructive worldview.  —Michael Z. 17:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that you haven't really provided any evidence for that view, only the maps and statements claiming cities in Uktaine. As others have said, the bias re Ukraine is obvious and can be easily dealt with, as it could be, say, in Israeli sources which claimed Golan or the West Bank. --Boynamedsue (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• This is not an RfC, so !voting isn't helpful. What is the context? Is this source used anywhere and does it cause problems? Totally sensible not to use it for anything related to post-2014 (and maybe even pre-2014) Ukraine, but blanket deprecation is an overkill. Alaexis_¿question? 06:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

So I did some research myself, it looks like it's used mostly in articles like Central Siberian Plateau, Parochial school, Russian cosmism, Agriculture in Russia as a source for various "boring" facts. Deprecating it would be quite disruptive. I'd support a tailored restriction for the areas in which a) it's likely to be influenced by the propaganda and b) it's causing problems on Wikipedia. Alaexis_¿question? 07:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

If so, I would urge the restriction to be quite broad, including anything related to politics, religion, national identity, and any other subject area that could be coloured by colonial, anti-Western, Russian-chauvinist, Russian-fascist, or genocidal views.  —Michael Z. 17:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd probably phrase it differently but before discussing wording, what are the uses of this sources on Wikipedia that you find objectionable? Alaexis_¿question? 18:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what uses of a Nazi encyclopedia would you find objectionable? Okay for “‘boring’ facts”?  —Michael Z. 07:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I find all uses that I listed in my first comment acceptable. The comparisons with Nazis aren't helpful. The level of press freedom in Russia is comparable to that in Egypt or Turkey, not to mention China. In each of these countries there are topics you can't mention. Alaexis_¿question? 19:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Press freedom isn’t directly relevant, as we’re talking about a government source. On the other hand, the index you refer to does say “Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, almost all independent media have been banned, blocked and/or declared ‘foreign agents’ or ‘undesirable organisations’. All others are subject to military censorship,” ranking Russia 164/180, or in the global lowest decile, and indicating that the Russian press won’t say anything the government doesn’t want it to. This is literally true on the subject of the war, for example.[40]  —Michael Z. 15:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Curate's egg As this is an encyclopedia then, like Wikipedia, it will be large and variable in quality, being written by many authors over time and with the issues mentioned above. Our policy WP:RS already addresses the issue of biased and questionable sources but makes the key point that context matters and so it depends what the source is being used for. I suppose that this source would be useful for humdrum facts like the date of birth of historical Russians (allowing for the different calendars). But that it should be attributed when it seems to be pushing a party line or is otherwise controversial. It might then be useful to show what the official Russian position is on such controversies. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• The big edit notice on this page says "The reliability of a source depends on its context". Everybody who posted on this page must have seen this. In Russia it is illegal to stay that "new territories" are not Russian. This is a criminal offense. It is not surprising therefore that every Russian source under a government control would say that Kherson is Russia. For Russian history (not only the recent one, but also for pretty much everything), this source can only be used to refer to the official government position. However, there are a lot of things the GRE can be used to source, most notably including geography and personalia. The information that person X was born in year Y or got prize Z might be difficult to find, and might be even impossible to source if we deprecate every Russian post-2014 or post-1991 or post-1917 source. I do not see any reason why we should do this. We already deprecated all Venezuelan government sources as government propaganda - good luck now with finding birth years of Venezuelan painters (recent personal experience).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. This is not a typical online encyclopedia or wiki. It seems to be under heavy censorship. The example with Zaporizhzhia shows intentionally distorted info even about geography. Further, all pages on recent political events (like the wars in Chechnya and Ukraine) are missing. Why is that? This is because all authors of this resource live in Russia. Whatever they can write about these recent wars, this will fall under the new law of offending Russian army, and the authors may go to prison. With regards to other articles in this resource, this depends on their authors whose names usually (but not always) appear in Russian below the articles. Can one trust these authors? Looking at a few examples, I would not because at least some of them follow the standard Soviet propaganda narrative. An idea of WP:RS is to have a source that a non-expert can trust. This is not one of them. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  My father was asked to write an article on graphene (I think they already have one, not sure why they now need another one, but anyway). I do not have any reason not to trust the article. Specifically for graphene, we do not need to cite this source, because there are plenty of English language sources covering the topic sufficiently, but for many topics (just guessing, not sure whether they actually have these articles) Msta or Anadyr or Ivan Papanin I do not see why we should throw them away. Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but... An outright censorship undermines the reliability of sources, and this is not just history and politics. For example, Soviet censorship permeated everything, including sports, art, science, biographies of people, fiction, etc. A geographic location of something? Yes, this should be good, unless this is a secret object, a matter of a territorial dispute, or something ideologically important for the regime. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

We can of course deprecate all Soviet (1917-1991), Russian (1991-2023), Chinese (1948-2023), Iranian (1979-2023) etc sources because there is censorship in these countries. But then we just suddenly have zero sources for a broad range of subjects which are completely uncontroversial. Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, except it is sometimes difficult to say if a subject was completely uncontroversial. Consider Soviet chess. This boils down to all participants having a sufficient expertise to evaluate the quality and veracity of various statements made by Russian, Chinese and Iranian sources, a lot of which are indeed of questionable reliability... My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

In other words, one can use any sources, even such as newspaper Pravda ("The Truth") if she/he uses them properly. But can we say that newspaper Pravda is an RS as defined in our policy? No, we can not. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Pravda is a generally unreliable RS, with the reliability dependent on the context. For example, for the sports results it wass generally fine though Sovetsky Sport was much better). Ymblanter (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• This is beyond absurd. There are plenty of articles authored by respected professionals in that encyclopedia, and they can be a valuable resource for us. For instance, this entry on Sergei Sokolov-Krechetov was co-written by Oleg Budnitskii, who is a fine scholar (you're welcome to Google him), and provides a basic outline of the subject's biography. If I wanted to create an article here (i.e. the English wiki) on this individual, and one day I might, this would be a good starting point.

As mentioned by other users, it's enough to not use their articles if they reflect a minority position (and we can evaluate them case-by-case), or if we want to be extra careful, just not use it for our articles where the official Russian government position is a minority position in world affairs, as we would do in any other similar such case - after all, this situation is not unique. I would say similar issues can be found not only in authoritarian regimes but also in democratic ones with territorial claims (Argentina, Spain, Serbia, India, Taiwan...) or occupying territories internationally considered to be part of other nations (Israel and the Golan, for instance). Same with many countries that revere individuals considered terrorists or war criminals by the rest of the world. Should we blanket deprecate all sources originating from those countries if they have published stuff reflecting the official views of said nation? Ostalgia (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• What about an approach similar to Fox News? Eg. taking it as unreliable for some topics (politics, modern-era Eastern Europe etc.) and as suspicious for other topics (useable unless other reliable sources disagree). Pavlor (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  So we need to use this source, but exclusively to support specific assertions for which we already have other supporting sources? Seems simpler to just not use it.  —Michael Z. 08:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  If there is a better source use that source, but there is no need to purge all current uses of this source without a replacement (like some editors did with Daily Mail, leaving an essentially unreferenced content). I'm for a more cautious approach: select some evidently problematic topics first and then broad the scope of unusable topics up to a full deprecation of that source. Pavlor (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Seems a reasonable approach.  —Michael Z. 19:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• If I may add a second comment, has anyone bothered checking the actual articles in which this source is used (link provided by op)? It's 118 articles in total, and with the sole exception of Cathedral of St. Michael the Archangel, Mariupol, where the GRE article on Mariupol (I was unable to check it because the link is broken, which might suggest it was added some time ago, before the war even) is one of two sources for the architects of the cathedral, I struggle to find anything objectionable (needless to say, I'd be all for removing a dead link to the GRE's article on Mariupol). It's mostly used in bios of Russian historical, cultural or sports figures of varying grades of obscurity, basic descriptions of small ethnic groups mostly from Russia or the USSR, and a few other things. I believe it's dishonest to explicitly look for a few obvious examples in an area where we do not use this source at all, but which will prove undoubtedly controversial, and then come here to suggest that we could be introducing disinformation to the encyclopedia by sourcing an article on an obscure Tsarist diplomat or some rocks to the GRE. Ostalgia (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. I did not go through every single reference in every single article, but my brief survey leads me to the same conclusion. It appears to be exclusively cited for anodyne quoditian purposes where there is no serious question about its reliability. Banks Irk (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Quite interesting that its map of Ukraine has not been updated at the same rate its map of Russia has. At any rate, agree with above comments that we can't deprecate every source that shows a certain POV regarding borders, as we'd have no more sources. RS/P has precedent for purportedly factual sources used by state actors to push territorial claims and other political views in WP:CHINADAILY, WP:SCMP, and WP:XINHUA. Clearly Great Russian Encyclopedia should be treated with that similar skepticism. CMD (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  But Kremlin political views are not restricted to the subject of politics. How would you phrase such a stricture regarding this source for RS/P?  —Michael Z. 15:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:RSPCRITERIA, For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. Curbon7 (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  And in the meantime, I mentioned three examples of strictures whose spirits can be followed. CMD (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think it's sensible to avoid using this source for ongoing controversial political topics, but having only just now discovered this resource myself and skimming through some of the classical music-related articles, it would be a mistake to deprecate its use altogether. As far as music, at least, the articles appear to be of good quality; they would be excellent starting points to improve or create articles related to Russian and Soviet art and other non-political subjects here. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hm, and what is Russian art? The Russian ultranationalist view of this encyclopedia may, for example, label Ukrainian music as Russian music.  —Michael Z. 23:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  You're now just one short of a score of posts on this topic without once answering the simple, basic, fundamental, sine qua non question: Is this source unreliable for any statement for which it is actually used, or proposed to be used, in any article here? The answer appears to be a resounding No! making this thread superfluous. Existing policies on tertiary sources and due, among others, are more than sufficient to address those concerns you have raised which are actually legitimate. Banks Irk (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is actually a good point by Michael. Disputing if certain artist was a "Ukrainian" or "Russian" is a hallmark of many disputes, including ones on wiki, and we need an accurate info about it. If this source says that a city is located at a Russian territory (while it is not), then sure thing, it will call every notable artist "Russian". That's a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  We have lots of rules around nationality for this very reason. An impecable source saying an individual born outside the RF is Russian is not going to simply be accepted and put into the article, much less a Russian published tertiary source. Though of course it is entirely possible that somebody born in Ukraine might be correctly classified as Russian, depending on the circumstances of their life and ancestry and the time they were born. I have been involved in dozens of such discussions relating to many different nationalities.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we should rely directly on RS here, as always. Do they say it was Russian painter? But the sources frequently contradict each other. One simple approach could be to rely on the classification by Metropolitan Museum of Art, for example. See [41]. But we probably would need an RfC for that. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• “The Ukraine.”  —Michael Z. 06:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Changed to "Ukraine" to reflect current preferences of most Ukrainians. However, for most of my life "the Ukraine" was standard English usage, and old habits die hard. When Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and USSR it was the only contemporary English usage, and it is that period I am principally referring to in my comment. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is too late, comrade. We have seen your true colours!

Jokes aside, indeed, the fact that someone was born at some point in the past in a territory that is today part of/controlled by a modern nation is not sufficient to ascribe them such a nationality on Wiki. This is especially true for nations with such an entangled history. An individual can be born, raised, and have flourished in what today is Ukraine and be unequivocally Russian, while another can be born in the RSFSR and be one of the foremost Ukrainian historians. We are allowed to evaluate the reliability of sources for particular claims, and I do not think anyone is going to be seriously looking at the GRE (or a Ukrainian equivalent, for that matter) as a "gotcha" to settle disputes about nationality. Ostalgia (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue, do you also write “Eskimo” and “Negro” when you’re not being condescending to national and racial groups, with the excuse that you’re old enough that casual prejudice feels normal? Wake up. It’s the 2020s now. Just Ukraine has been the prevailing and only acceptable English writing style for over three decades. To broadcast an intentional preference for “the Ukraine” is non-WP:NPOV and borderline offensive to anyone who values basic respect. It is not acceptable to throw language like this around in civil discussions about colonized and formerly colonized groups and expect to colour the consensus.  —Michael Z. 15:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I would say that the above comparison is offensive, ethnic slurs (which sometimes eskimo isn't btw) are not the same as accidentally using slightly outdated country names. Given the tone and content of your posts, I am actually beginning to wonder whether your primary focus here is on constructing an encyclopaedia. I would just like to remind you that many of us think about Ukraine less frequently than you do. I thought about football this afternoon, for example.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the strong reaction, but the comments from someone supposedly participating in many discussions on the subject were shocking. Correctly referring to national groups is an important part of WP:CIVIL discourse: it’s for each other and for ourselves, not to be minimized as currying to “most Ukrainians” or a group invoked as a non-participant other who in reality probably won’t know or care what you write here. We can all make lapses, but better to correct ourselves and move on than try to justify them.  —Michael Z. 17:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Mzajac, you are crossing the line. Boynamedsue clearly explained to you the reason they used that spelling, while also removing and correcting it. It is obvious they were not ill-intentioned. Your answer is completely disproportionate. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Mike, sometimes I think you need a really big hug. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  That is actually an excellent point, but I think this also fall under the broad "generally unreliable for Ukraine topics" umbrella. Curbon7 (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Is it not equally unreliable for Russia topics? The most egregious disinfo is in statements that are on the surface about Russia, not Ukraine: these are the borders of Russia, this is a Russian oblast, this is a city in Russia.  —Michael Z. 15:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Personally I am not confortable with the prospect of only deprecating the encyclopedia for Ukraine-topics, as if Ukraine was the only country suffering Russian aggression today. Russia still occupies land from Georgia and Moldova. I took a look at their article on Abkhazia [42], it uses language such as "occupation" for describing Georgia's control of Sukhumi and "liberation" to describe the Abkhaz attempts to take the city. It also states that "An important part of the Georgian population abandoned the republic [Abkhazia]"; it was a bit more complicated than that, as in they were either killed or forcibly expelled [43], however I am surprised that sentence is even in the article. I cannot find it right now, but I read an article of the encyclopedia before on the history of Bessarabia (most of Moldova, and a bit of Ukraine), and it included the typical propaganda points such as that it was neglected under Romanian rule and that it was actually developed during the Russian Empire (wrong, it was one of the most backward provinces of the most backward empire of its time). Talking about the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the whole article focuses on how the pact was a Soviet diplomatic victory and how the Germans used vague wording to later justify its invasion of the USSR (they were actually the victims), instead of on the illegal invasion and occupation of several Eastern European nations and the repressions that followed.

Rather than only deprecating the source for the Russo-Ukrainian War, I think we should deprecate it for controversial topics for the Russian government. Would you trust a Russian government source for reading about the Abkhaz–Georgian conflict, or about the history of Ukraine? I wouldn't. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it completely omits the role of Russian army during the War in Abkhazia (1992–1993), for example. My very best wishes (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Article on Crimea completely omits the Russian military invasion before the 2014 occupation.  —Michael Z. 04:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that what we are all trying to say is that on any political topic there is a risk that this source will publish a Russian government line. Therefore we should act with extreme care when using it, and the closer to Russia and the present we get, the more care we need to take. However, I think our users are quite sophisticated and aware of potential problems in the Eastern European area, and this is why, despite its Kremlin line, the GRS does not seem to have been used to source anything problematic. On the contrary, it seems to be sourcing lots of useful content. This reflects quite well of our processes and editors, and maybe suggests that we don't really need to actually do anything? Boynamedsue (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I partially agree with that, but if we are to do something, just deprecating it for the Russo-Ukrainian War will solve only half of the issue. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know if further from the present means safer from propaganda in this case. The history section of the article about Ukraine talks about the “Ancient Russian state” (Drevnerusskoe gosudarstvo), instead of Kyivan Rus. This is a subject area dear to today’s Russian imperialists.  —Michael Z. 02:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

1) The term "Древнерусское государство" has been around for ages (see, for instance, Древнерусское государство и его международное значение, a 1965 Soviet book on the topic). "Русское" there refers to ancient Rus', not to Russia (just like in Russkaya Pravda). The proper translation would be "Ancient Rus' state". This is something you know, so I assume the mistranslation is intentional.

2) The shift in emphasis in Russia from Kievan Rus' to this term during the last decade or so indeed has political connotations.

3) Regardless of 1) and 2), the term has little if any traction in English (in the sense of an alternative term for Kievan Rus' - it does have legitimate uses), which means that not only do we not use it, but the odds of someone adding it to the English Wikipedia are slim to none (per WP:COMMONNAME), just like we don't use "Great Patriotic War" other than to point out that the Soviets called it thus. Ostalgia (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

No, the only translation I’ve seen constantly in sources is “Ancient Russian state,”[44] and I used it begrudgingly because of course this is a misuse of the term of art Ancient history, referring to the study of Classical antiquity. “Ancient Rus state” is so little used that Ngram fails to chart its proportional use in recent years apparently due to divide-by-zero error.[45] If you can point out where the name is translated differently, I would appreciate it.

I am not a Russian-speaker, but I am aware that Russian writing does tend to erase the distinction between Rus and Russia, and that Western historiography of Eastern Europe is still working hard to divest itself of this colonial attitude (ASEEES just held a world conference on this topic). You can’t pin that on me. Isn’t there an adjective like rus′ke?

Your defence of the source seems to be that it is propaganda but all Wiki editors will always be able to deduce the non-propaganda facts out of it, even in WP:CT subjects. Seems like a poor citation policy for a volunteer-run encyclopedia to me. Especially when professional academics are still struggling with this problem seven decades after they identified it.[46]  —Michael Z. 17:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It's because the term, as I mentioned, has little if any traction in English (in either translation). I mentioned that "Ancient Rus' state" would be the proper translation not because it's the most used (again, none of them are used), but because it's the correct one in terms of meaning, hence my analogy with Russkaya Pravda (which, in the past, was also translated as "Russian", but it refers to old Rus'). This brings me to your second point - if by "Russian writing" you mean Russian historiography (i.e. the production of historical works), then you are conflating propaganda and actual historical writing. There is very high quality historiography written in Russian, and there is also the garbage produced by the Vladimir Medinskys of the world. In this encyclopedia we strive to use the former, and we are expected to discard the latter. If, however, by Russian writing you are referring to the Russian language, then the answer is no - I'm not a native speaker, but there's no rus'ke/руське in Russian (that's Ukrainian). As a complete side note, what ASEEES held was its yearly convention.

Finally, my "defence of the source" is nothing like what you're making out to be. My argument is simple. The majority of the GRE is a largely good source. There's material on lots of topics that can be useful in areas where a tertiary source can prove helpful. What is more, if need be the articles can be taken individually and have identifiable authors that can help gauge to what level they can be trusted - they can be discussed case-by-case. There are articles that are tainted by the official position of the Russian state (some of which can be downright discarded as propaganda), but none of those articles are being used, contrary to what your opening message suggested. It is also unlikely that any of those will ever be used, and even more unlikely that they will not be easily challenged if they are. If we want to be on the safe side, then the more obviously controversial topic (contemporary Russia, broadly construed) can be marked as a no-go for the GRE, but I really do not believe anyone would go to the GRE to source info on Putin. Ostalgia (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so based on your enlightening translation of russkoe, will you be voting to move Tsardom of Russia to Tsardom of Rus' or Tsardom of Muscovy? Or are you ignoring the fact that Russian-language writing has a pervasive bias in refusing to acknowledge that Rus and Russia are different things?

This brings up a good point regarding reliable sources in this broad subject area. Russian history writing, and its influence on Western histories of Eastern Europe, has been problematic. This year’s ASEEES conference is on the theme of decolonization, especially concerning decolonization of Slavic and Eastern European studies in light of the Russian invasions of Ukraine and the enormous blind spots in scholarship they have exposed. It’s bad enough already that the Russian POV has permeated Western scholarship, which is now acknowledging it is only recognizing the large scope of its problem and trying to work towards correcting it.[47][48] All Russian sources on Russian history (of which “Little Russian” history is an integral part) are potentially problematic,[49] the more so sources published in Russia since the introduction of draconian memory and anti-free-speech laws following the invasions of Ukraine, and most especially a Russian government website largely dedicated to Putin’s pet topic, historical propaganda.

Maybe the 2004—2017 edition of the GRE had merit, but why would we decide to refer to this derived propaganda website when that one and numerous other sources exist?  —Michael Z. 19:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

"All Russian sources on Russian history are potentially problematic" is an extreme POV which I hope is not going to come even close to consensus here. Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

No, based on common sense I know that we, in the English-language Wikipedia, should be translating русский/русская/русское/русские according to the context. The fact that the Russian language does not have two different adjectives for Rus' and for Russia doesn't mean that we should translate every instance of the term as Russian (which is ironically what the aforementioned Medinskys of the world probably would want) - you'll find that there are tens of languages in which the same or similar words can mean different (even wildly different) things. If you do not understand a language, then you probably should not be involved in trying to convey the meaning of a term in that language. It really is that simple. Your suggestion that Russian-language writing has a pervasive bias in refusing to acknowledge that Rus and Russia are different things seems to imply that the Russian language in itself is biased and therefore not to be trusted. You make this explicit by claiming that all Russian sources on Russian history (of which “Little Russian” history is an integral part) are potentially problematic. I think that this suggestion, said about literally any other nation, would probably end up in a sanction. I find your position to be not only radical, but also bizarre and frankly dangerous, although not in the least surprising. Ostalgia (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Well I have to hand it to Wikipedia editors. This term is only used four times, twice as “Ancient Rus state” (A, B), once where it was changed to that (C), and in only a single article that looks pretty bad at first glance (D).

But is what you say about contextual translation of russkoe justified? A Google Books Ngram chart shows us that this term is relatively little used,[50] but it is nearly always translated “ancient Russian state.”[51] (I think the term is to be avoided in either form because it is an awkward calque and because it’s politically loaded.)

I did not say “the Russian language in itself is biased and therefore not to be trusted.” I’m sure Russian language can be used to neutrally express historical fact by anyone who wants to.

I do think that historiography of Russia in Russia, where it has historically been constrained by state censorship for most of its existence, has a chronic imperialist POV problem from its very beginning, and Western historiography of Eastern Europe has inherited some of it. In these last two years, the West continues to catch on and is trying to reconcile its inherited biases.[52] Meanwhile, in Russia – which is inciting genocide while cracking down hard on public speech, and is credibly accused of committing genocide – the imperialist POV, both inherited and imposed by the state is about as bad as ever. I’m certain I can support this argument with good sources that are not radical nor bizarre. It’s ignoring the signs that is dangerous, which is why we shouldn’t endorse an actively updated Russian government propaganda website masquerading as an encyclopedia as a source.  —Michael Z. 02:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

1) For the third time: the term Древнерусское государство has little if any traction in English, in any translation (that is, it is not a real alternative term for Kievan Rus' in English), and that ngram that you keep posting for whatever reason, shows exactly that (I'd wager most of the hits are low quality machine translations of Russian texts). I'm just pointing out how your translation of русское in that context is incorrect and tendentious. I really do not know how to explain it to you any other way.

2) You said, and I quote, Russian-language writing has a pervasive bias in refusing to acknowledge that Rus and Russia are different things, which goes beyond historiography, and that all Russian sources on Russian history (of which “Little Russian” history is an integral part) are potentially problematic. You state this without (by your own admission) knowing Russian, so you literally have no idea of what is written in Russian, but somehow you try to convince everyone else that everything produced in that language is problematic.

3) Academic conferences are usually on hot topics. You'll find that this is true whether it's slavists or chemists. What you will not find, however, is ASEEES backing some bizarre call for ignoring all stuff written in Russian (you are welcome to propose it at the 2024 convention, though), a call that, I repeat, is nothing short of insane and we would consider completely unacceptable for any other people on the planet. Ostalgia (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not see why you are wasting your time. The Ukrainian word "руський" is also used for very different time periods but no one is complaining about Ukrainian imperialists. Mellk (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

ASEEES chose its conference theme because “Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has led to widespread calls for the reassessment and transformation of Russo-centric relationships of power and hierarchy both in the region and in how we study it.”[53] Meanwhile, Russia is updating an “encyclopedia” that is becoming an instrument of its regressive and destructive grasp for power. What I’m calling for is reasonably recognizing that it is not a preferable source.  —Michael Z. 19:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't comment a lot on RS, so I'm not completely clear on Deprecation v Generally Unreliable for specific topics. But I do think we should NOT throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think it is Unreliable on Russian related Geopolitics, especially modern. But not a bad source for other things, like Russian literature, science, medicine.DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

+ not a bad source for North Caucasian things: GRE has good articles about famous Ingush linguist, first Ingush ethnographer, famous Chechen writer, another famous Chechen writer, famous Ossetian linguist, Ossetian writer and so on. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t checked, but I’m curious what it says about casualty figures for the Chechen wars, the casus belli for the second war, and the current human rights situation there.  —Michael Z. 01:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• A reminder that we need a formal closure here, to avoid later false claims concerning presence or absence of consensus in this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  A formal closure is not needed here. Most non-RfC RSN discussions are indeed not closed, but will exist ad infinitum in the page archive. Curbon7 (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  I can easily see a user claiming this discussion contains consensus for deprecation, or consensus for (almost) unrestricted use. At the end of the day, this is a contentious topic, and we want to minimize the disruption. Ymblanter (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, it is most definitely not a contentious topic within the meaning of that term in en.wikipedia. And, while I am as tired as anyone of the bludgeoning of this discussion, a formal closure is unnecessary if editors would just stop. Nor will a formal closure avoid "disruption", because there is no disruption. As several editors have pointed out, this is a purely academic and unnecessary discussion in the first place, since there is no actual dispute over the specific use of the source as a reference for any specific statement in any of the ~120 specific articles where it is cited. Banks Irk (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Forbes "Subscribers"

This source is being used in the Geometry Dash article to say that Apple ranked it x and x.

However it appears to be written by a "subscriber"? I am not sure if its that's WP:FORBESCON or not. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

As per list of perennial sources, only Forbes articles written by editor/Forbes staff are reliable. "Contributor" articles, including this one, are generally unreliable. Cortador (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that when this article first went up, the author was listed as a "contributor" rather than a "subscriber", so, while the latter term is not clear to me (former contributor? Someone who pays for contributor-like access?), yes, it gets treated like a contributor. However, that opens up a curious possibility: if someone who was previously a contributor gets taken on staff, do all their old posts get switched to be marked "staff"? If so, that would get unverified articles listed in aa way that we think they're reliable. Probably not a large concern, but it will nag at me... -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd say no. Qualifications aren't applied retroactively. Cortador (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That is concerning. Unless there is evidence that all of a contributor's past articles have been fact-checked prior to the contributor being promoted to a staff writer, all of the articles that were written while the author was a contributor should be considered self-published. A web archive link to any one of an author's articles on Forbes.com or to the author's profile page (example) is sufficient to show that the author was a contributor at the time the page was archived. — Newslinger talk 15:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with Cortador and only use those listed as written by staff. Forbes has branched off and now has contributors, Forbes Council, etc., all of which are non-staff written submissions. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

RFC: The Cradle

What is the reliability of "The Cradle" website?

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

The last discussion regarding this website can be found here. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 4: Deprecate

I have explained how "The Cradle" operates as a disinformation outlet in the previous discussion. I am posting that comment here again.

"The cradle" is not a news organization, it is just another pro-Russia, pro-Assad, pro-Iran, pro-Maduro disinformation site which peddles numerous conspiracy theories. That outlet doesnt have any fact-checking policies and allows anyone who is approved by it's operators to publish articles in the site. "The cradle" is a self-published source which should be deprecated.

The regular columnists listed in its website, include:

• Pepe Escobar, who is a pro-Kremlin conspiracy theorist (see past discussion)
• Sharmine Narwani, another pro-Russian propagandist who used to write at the pro-Russia outlet "RT"

Narwani appears to be the main contributor of this website.

Some of the conspiracy theories promoted by that website include:

• its claim that Kurds collaborated with IS in the Yazidi genocide (here)
• its claim that the chemical attacks launched by the Assad regime in Syria are all "false flags" orchestrated by the Syrian opposition
• its claim that "Israel controls British foreign policy"

Propagandistic, conspiratorial sites are widely deployed as sources all across the articles of "The cradle" website. These conspiratorial sites include:

• Al-Mayadeen (here)
• RT (here)
• Sputnik (here)
• Press TV (here)
• The Grayzone (here)

"The cradle" is simply another disinformation, conspiratorial website masqueraded by its financiers as a news outlet.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Shadowwarrior8: Two questions: first, do you have sources stating that the material contained in the stories labelled conspiracy theories above is the stuff of conspiracy theory? And secondly, it seems like the site attributes sources correctly - so what is wrong with it mentioning the claims of non-RS with proper attribution? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The site regularly runs fake news stories solely based on the claims by these propaganda sources. For example: "Recent ISIS attacks in Syrian desert carried out with US support", "CIA recruits ISIS fighters from SDF-run prisons in Syria to fight in Ukraine". Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The unquestioning nature of these brief news pieces in their relaying of information from untrusted sources makes them not great, but they still properly seem to be attributing those untrusted sources, without making additional claims on the part of the Cradle - merely relaying that some sources said X. These headlines all end in ": source" or ": report", so even the headlines are couched. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"The Cradle" explicitly endorses the POV of these conspiratorial sites as well, including in the two articles linked above. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Deprecate with prejudice. I have already mentioned my position in the previous discussion. Just a bunch of crackpots under the same masthead. I do not know to what extent we're using it, but we shouldn't, at all. I wouldn't trust it to tell us what day it is. (note: I'm on mobile so if this message ends up where it shouldn't, feel free to move it to the appropriate part of the RfC) Ostalgia (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
• Deprecate, per Shadowwarrior here, and Red-tailed hawk and The Kip in the original discussion. There's a significant overlap between this source and Globalresearch (a worthless conspiracy site) through writers Escobar, Narwani, and Bhadrakumar. I don't think 'bias' is the problem; the problem is that their purpose seems to be to support the propaganda of various state actors, which makes them inherently unreliable. I'll note that the website was recently created, and first indexed by Google 5 months ago. They're pro-Assad[54] (and attribute the chemical attacks to a Saudi "false flag"[55]). They've echoed Russian propaganda[56] and Iranian propaganda[57]. Not remotely usable in any context. DFlhb (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4: Deprecate, other editors proved why it should be deprecated. Parham wiki (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4: Deprecate. Site with very weak record of fact checking, the evidence provided by Shadowwarrior8 and DFlhb suggest this is not an appropriate source for a credible encyclopedia. Marokwitz (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2: Additional considerations.I'm not convinced by the arguments for deprecation:

  "Propagandistic, conspiratorial sites are widely deployed" - well the Grayzone for example is mentioned 9 times. Whereas for example the NYT [58] is mentioned 416 times.

  "Simply another disinformation, conspiratorial website masqueraded by its financiers as a news outlet." - any reliable sources to back up that specific claim?

  "Pepe Escobar, who is a pro-Kremlin conspiracy theorist (see past discussion)" - on my reading the passing mention in the previous discussion wasn't actually backed by the source. Mujinga (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Mujinga (sorry if I shouldn't have pinged you, I'm still getting the hang of this): Your argument that the NYT is mentioned 416 times doesn't mean anything, necessarily, for a few reasons.

  One: One of the results was Western Media Whitewashes Israel's Murder of Al Jazeera Journalist. They're not citing the New York Times, they're using it to say it's an Israeli tool. Heck, the first result of that search doesn't cite the New York Times, it's saying it fired a Palestinian journalist!

  Two: If I cite the New York Times 60 or 70 times, and the Daily Stormer once or twice, non-jokingly/not as a way to say "the Daily Stormer is an unreliable, Nazi, antisemitic, anti-everyone thing which words fail to describe", in a news article, I would support my deprecation. Yet by your criterion (and correct me if I'm wrong), it's "Additional Considerations". (Honestly, if it's the Daily Stormer, I would support my disqualification from the human race.) Just because they cite an RS more than a bullshitty site doesn't mean much. The NYT has a much higher profile than Grayzone, they're probably going to cite it more.

  Three, they might be twisting things. Some searching on another website, The Conversation, gave me a good example: Ordinary Russians are already feeling the economic pain of sanctions over Ukraine invasions. If I wanted to, I could probably twist it into pro-Kremlin, anti-sanction, propaganda ("The Conversation says ordinary Russians are suffering from Western/Israeli sanctions--punishing them for fighting Nazis!")

  Your question about reliable sources backing up the "disinformation, conspiratorial website masqueraded by its financiers as a news outlet": if you're denying well-documented genocides and citing Russian propaganda while claiming to be a news outlet, I think it's fair to describe you as that, and it doesn't have a very high profile. A search for "the cradle news" here has only 199 results, and that's including, say, a Google Books result for "The Four-Track News", published 1905. No one's gotten around to describing it that way yet.

  Regarding your claim about Pepe Escobar, the Wikipedia article on him linked to a few of those claims; it cites the US Department of State describing it here as this: "RT and Sputnik have mutually beneficial relationships with writers for proxy sites, including Finian Cunningham, Pepe Escobar, and Christopher Black."

  71.112.180.130 (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Pepe Escobar is literally a regular columnist at the Russian propaganda-conspiracist outlet "Sputnik". Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4. This is a conspiracy website that provides "revelations" on various subjects. While some of their claims may have a merit, others seem to be an outright "disinformation". Unfortunately, an unsuspecting contributor can not say which is which, unless she/he has a sufficient expertise on the specific subject. I assume some contributors have such expertise, but then why would they need such source? My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 or worse. I'm not a fan of deprecation without smoking gun evidence of deliberate publishing of falsehood. If problems keep appearing we can deprecate the source later. In addition to the issues the listed above their About section has ominous mentions of "The Other" which is hardly compatible with a RS. Alaexis_¿question? 19:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4/Deprecate primarily owing to its heavy reliance on already-deprecated sources. Not doing so would effectively allow a loophole to get these sites’ claims on WP. The Kip 18:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Deprecation doesn't mean that claims made by unreliable sources can't be stated on wikipedia. Eg CNN, which is an RS, reported on claims made by RT[59] and PressTv[60].VR _talk 18:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Wording mistake on my part, I moreso meant “getting their claims” as legitimizing their positions (ex. conspiracy theories) rather than simply reporting what they’ve said/done. The Kip 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3+ It depressing to see another "news" source peddling the antisemitic canard that jews are controlling the west. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested: Is this based on the piece cited by shadow warrior? And did you read it? The claims are specific to two lobby groups and influences on two pieces of UK policy. This is a few orders of magnitude from trope. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  As Alaexis has noted above, their editorial page contains a multitude of references to something they call “The Other” supposedly using states as pawns to cause regional chaos, and the goal of the Cradle to “fight” this “Other.” While it may not outright say it, that’s a pretty classic dogwhistle to those familiar with antisemitism. The Kip 03:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  "The Cradle" website literally claimed in that article:

  "Israel now controls British Foreign policy through a highly-infiltrated, ferociously active network of organizations, campaigners, and relationships"

  Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's the standfirst/sub-headline, and the precepts of WP:HEADLINES apply to it. Often these lines are not even written by the writer. The content of the body is what's important. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, the article’s author may not have written it, but the site finding that to be an acceptable headline is still a rather significant issue. The Kip 09:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  OK. That clears the writer. Maybe. But we still need to accept these options: 1) The Cradle (or its staff) wrote the headline. In which case it's an at best severely anti-Israel, probably antisemitic, trashy news site. 2) They approved the headline, but didn't write it, which indicates a remarkable lack of editorial oversight (or option 1). 3) They did not write or approve the headline, which calls into doubt how much of the stuff on their website they write, and makes it not a reliable source. I don't see a way for them to wriggle out of this remotely reliable. 71.112.180.130 (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  As others have already said, saying that there are Jewish lobby groups or that those lobby groups may push for policies that are positive for Israel is not an issue and is well documented, but saying that such groups "control" such or other isn't backed up by anything is just stating an antisemitic canard with extra words. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Deprecate as The Cradle is a classic disinformation operation. - Amigao (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Source and/or evidence? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Deprecate - Option 4 per explanations provided above specifically by Shadowwarrior8 Homerethegreat (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• Deprecate - Option 4 due to many publications (some mentioned in the linked discussion), especially those from several months ago or more, that haven't been /corrected/ from "errors". TaBaZzz (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 - per several users, doesn't have a good record at checking facts. Dovidroth (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• Deprecate - Option 4 - yet more grist from the Putin/Assad/Iran/Maduro disinfo/propaganda mill. Neutrality^talk 23:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3+ - evidence in this discussion and the archived one is very clear that this is a generally unreliable source. I am not a big fan of deprecation, especially of a site not previously discussed at this noticeboard, but it might be worth considering in this case given it is used in several articles as an unattributed source for facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Notifying all editors who were involved in the recently archived discussion.

@Longhornsg @Selfstudier @BobFromBrockley @Mujinga @Ostalgia @My very best wishes @Alaexis @Red-tailed hawk @The Kip Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• First off "RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed" - I don't think that's really the case here. Are there any pertinent examples of its use on wikipedia? Secondly, having had another look at the site and the previous discussion, perhaps there's a distinction to be made between news and the opinion pieces published by the columnists? Red-tailed hawk I don't tend to check pings so I missed your question, yes indeed Ostalgia was right I took masthead in the Br-Eng way. In the US-way, it does seem to be missing and thus editorial oversight is a concern, alongside the bias, but then for our purposes here it would surely depend upon what claims The Cradle is actually being used to back on wikipedia. Mujinga (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  PS it occurs to me perhaps there's more editorial info on the arabic version of the site as opposed to the english one Mujinga (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  "The Cradle" has been deployed as a "source" in 62 articles across wikipedia. Thats alarming. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  I’m not a big fan of deprecation but it might be appropriate here because of the usages the site seems to have gained. The first use in that list is a very uncontroversial historical claim in the Afghanistan article but the cited piece, by Escobar, is a bizarre piece of pseudo-history that makes all kinds of racist and orientalist claims (“Pashtuns have a natural aversion to the Westphalian notion of the nation-state”, “Afghans as a whole may be defined as the quintessential Natural Born Muslims”, etc) and that cites no sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Skimming through the other uses: the third (in BRICS) is an article that reports "US sabotage of the Nordstream pipeline" as a fact; the sixth (in Kommando Spezialkräfte Marine) is a dead link but the article (from October) speculates that German and Dutch troops were about to start fighting in the war on Israel's side; the same weird Escobar piece used in Afghanistan is also used in History of Afghanistan. Almost all of the uses are in contentious topic areas - Israel/Palestine, Syria. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  62 articles is not "widely used" -- The Weekly World News used to be cited in 80 articles, it took one person (me) a few days to clean it up. --JBL (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Institute for Strategic Dialogue

I'm seeing some disagreement on Aaron Mate about a paragraph in the introduction based largely on Institute for Strategic Dialogue, which to my reading looks like some sort of advocacy group. Didn't see any previous discussion and I'm wondering if anyone would like to offer an opinion. It seems certain they are not neutral, but that's not the question. Would they be considered a reliable source to make statements like: among the 28 social media accounts, individuals, outlets, and organisations which it studied, Maté was the most prolific spreader of disinformation surrounding the war, including on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government (through the Guardian) and including one concerning what Maté called a cover-up by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons regarding the April 2018 Douma chemical attack (directly from the institute). Opinions? To my eyes this looks UNDUE, but here I'm asking about the source. BusterD (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I would attribute it, but should be usable. No comment on the due weight issue as those are outside the scope of this noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Aaron mate and Max Blumenthal are some of the most infamous conspiracy theorists in the West.

So these specific contents which you have quoted do not appear to be undue.

However, since the "Institute for Strategic Dialogue" itself is a biased think-tank affiliated with various Western governments, it should not be cited without proper attribution. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I think attribution is generally a good practice with thinktanks, it's worth noting that ISD has a good reputation for non-partisan politics and rigorous research. It is a reliable source. It is heavily used as a source by reliable sources such as the Independent,[61] New Statesman,[62] RTE,[63] BBC,[64] Irish Examiner,[65] NYTimes,[66] NBC,[67] WaPo,[68] Guardian,[69] ABC,[70] TheConversation,[71] PBS,[72] Seattle Times,[73] DW,[74] Time,[75] VoA,[76] France24.[77]

The only negative comment I could see about them on several pages of Google News hits was from Electronic Intifada, currently being debated up this page with most editors considering it unreliable.

Re ShadowWarrior saying it is "affiliated with various Western governments", it's true it has declared funding funded by various governmental and intergovernmental bodies, including UN, EU, Council of Europe, and Australia, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Germany, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and US (along with private and philanthropic funders)[78] - but I wouldn't frame this as "affiliated with". BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Puzzle museum

I'm trying to get the Nonogram out of the sad state its in right now, but I am having difficulties in finding sources for the history of the puzzle. The problem is, every source seems to cite Wikipedia(even scholarly ones!) or a website called Puzzle Museum. Here is the self-written bio for the sites sole author, which as far as I can tell has no editorial control. Would this be enough to qualify as WP:EXPERTSPS? Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd say likely yes. As well as the design and production of puzzles he was responsible for the Sunday Telegraph publishing Nonograms. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me in that case. Cortador (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. He has been independently published many times on the subject and would qualify as a SME. Banks Irk (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliability regarding numbers

1.) The PORTUGUESE-MARATHA RELATIONS used in the article Mughal invasion of Konkan to cite the Mughal strength as "100,000 strong force. His army consisted of 40,000 horsemen, 60,000 footmen, 1900 elephants and 2000 camels". The same book is used to cite the numbers of Marathas as "10,000-15,000". So do the casualties of the conflict.

2.) Same concern for Renascent Empire?: The House of Braganza and the Quest for Stability in Portuguese Monsoon Asia c.1640-1683

3.) Same concern for Shivputra Sambhaji (6th ed.). Pune: Continental Publications

4.) Same concern for Chhatrapati Sambhaji (4th ed.). Kolhapur (couldn't find the linked source)

Is this all reliable? I am preparing for a copyedit so it would be helpful if the answer gets in the order as above.

Imperial^[AFCND] 06:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Not enough information on #1,3 & 4 to assess. #2 is from an academic publisher, but the summary at the link states that the author's approach may diverge from academic consensus. Banks Irk (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

So in conclusion, can we use those? The above cited information is present in those sources? Imperial^[AFCND] 18:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea if #1, 3 or 4 are reliable or not. On #2, it can be used with attribution. Banks Irk (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Imperial^[AFCND] 04:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The Economist reports on the New York Times

A recently published article in the Economist, When the New York Times lost its way, reports on some issues with the New York Times in the last few years, such as publishing what are essentially opinion pieces without labelling them as such, and making substantive changes to articles without notifying the readers with a note.

The internet rewards opinionated work and, as news editors felt increasing pressure to generate page views, they began not just hiring more opinion writers but also running their own versions of opinionated essays by outside voices – historically, the province of Opinion’s op-ed department. Yet because the paper continued to honour the letter of its old principles, none of this work could be labelled “opinion” (it still isn’t).

That was a weaselly adjustment – Cotton wrote about criminality, not “unrest” – but the article at least no longer unambiguously misrepresented Cotton’s argument to make it seem he was in favour of crushing democratic protest. The Times did not publish a correction or any note acknowledging the story had been changed.

I don't think this requires any immediate action, but I am posting it here as it might be of it interest to editors here. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 08:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

One person disagreeing with a piece's conclusions (especially someone who, obviously, has a giant axe to grind with the Times on that particular issue) doesn't make a paper unreliable. --Aquillion (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't make the paper unreliable on it's own, but it's still a notable data point. It's not some one random person disagreeing, but a high-level subject matter expert, who's well-placed to make cogent criticism of the organization and how it functions, writing in a high-quality WP:RS. GretLomborg (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of Wisdom Embodied

Can I use Wisdom Embodied: Chinese Buddhist and Daoist Sculpture in the Metropolitan Museum of Art to cite "Karkota dynaty of Kashmir supported the Tang dynaty in the Battle of Talas" in the article Battle of Talas? Using the quote "Kashmir supported China against Tibetan invaders in 722 and later helped defeat the Arabs at the Battle of Talas in 751. In addition, Kashmir was one of the stopping points on a series of new routes linking China with various Indian kingdoms and Buddhist centers that flourished in the seventh and eighth centuries"-p.96 Imperial^[AFCND] 17:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Considering it was written and published under the auspices of the MoMA itself, I don’t see why not. They’re not exactly a biased source. The Kip 21:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

FYI: MoMA, Metropolitan Museum. --JBL (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

An aside about historical events in a blurb on an artwork on display at the Met unrelated to the artwork itself is not a source we should rely upon for historical facts. They're art historians, not historians. Banks Irk (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It's probably reliable, but as Banks Irk said better sources must definitely exist. If this is the only source for this information it would actually caste doubt on it. Not because the Met is unreliable, but because no actual historian ever mentioning such a fact and it being correct seems impossible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I found another source. Thank you. Imperial^[AFCND] 04:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

EastMojo

Looking for the reliability of EastMojo.com. I just nominated EastMojo for G5 but see that references to that publication are used 374 times on Wikipedia. It was mentioned in regards to another Wikipedia page and I see that they have a large amount of sponsored content and I cannot find anything about editorial oversight on the site. What I also found interesting is that the footer says "Proudly powered by Newspack by Automattic" which is an open-source website that publishes user generated content for revenue-share. If I can get feedback from users on reliability and if not reliable, feedback on what to do with the 374 references currently in Wikipedia. CNMall41 (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Their About Us page also suggests that much content is crowdsourced rather than written by regular reporters. I would not use it as a source. Banks Irk (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The adverting page appears to point towards advertorials, so the caution expressed in WP:NEWSORGINDIA is probably a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Can podcasts be reliable sources

I know this is a pretty general question rather than a specific example, however, I'm not sure where else to ask. Podcasts are not mentioned in any policies or guidelines as far as I'm aware and they are cited quite often. Most of the time they are clearly unreliable. However, reputable news sources that are listed at RSP as generally reliable have produced podcasts as well. Should podcasts be considered as reliable as their publisher or should they be treated the same as a WP:NEWSBLOGS? Are podcasts ever reliable enough to contribute to notability? I've provided a few examples of what I mean below.

• The New York Times has produced news shows like The Daily and documentary shows such as Rabbit Hole
• NPR has produced news shows like Up First and documentary shows such as No Compromise
• The Atlantic produced a documentary show called Floodlines
• The CBC produced an investigative journalism show called Missing and Murdered
• The BBC has produced shows such as Newscast and Two Minutes Past Nine

TipsyElephant (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

You can use some podcasts. They are same as NEWSBLOGS or the publisher Softlem (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Softlemonades: to clarify are you saying that they should be treated as a WP:NEWSBLOG or are you saying they should be treated the same as their publisher? It looks like you said both. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Most are NEWSBLOGS but The Daily podcast would be same as publisher because it is from the normal articles and subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process Softlem (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course they can... Any form of media which can be verified can be a source in some circumstance. There is no way to provide guidance for a whole class of media that is meaningful, just follow the normal rules. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @TipsyElephant

I think (like most things), the context is what matters. I feel like a lot of podcasts are mostly opinion/discussion pieces, in which case, no they aren't reliable. But if released by a reputable source like those listed above, then maybe - but only if everything is based on verified facts. I don't know many podcasts like this as most of them tend to lean towards discussion of the issue. You'd have to take this on a case-by-case basis..

Starlights99 (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

A podcast is no different to any other publication medium - the quality and reliability of the content spans the whole spectrum of possibilities. Some podcasts are equivalent to newspaper or magazine articles, others are equivalent to a random bloke spouting off in a pub. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

"Classical Hollywood cinema" fanboy article is a disaster

This article seems to have been monopolized by an individual or small group of individuals whose perception is warped...and no one's doing anything about it.

There are a couple of major issues. First is the timeframe used to define "Classical Hollywood". Some Joe Schmo has put 1969 as the cutoff, but the reference that immediately follows this dubious claim - Oxford Dictionary website - says 1960! Which means the editor who put '69 is lying (misrepresenting, fabricating, whatever).

For perspective, Raquel Welch said that she thought of classic Hollywood as finishing off in the '50s, while TCM's Alicia Malone considers a classic film to be anything before 1980. There is no clear definition.

Even if you approximate, 1969 is such a random year. Smack dab in the middle of counterculture, it's completely inappropriate to use as a cutoff. 1959 or 1979 would make sense.

The second major issue is the compilation of actors and actresses that are ostensibly "major figures from classical Hollywood cinema". Some of the names on there are laughable. Tippi Hedren? She starred in exactly two films. And while she was born in 1930, her first credit isn't until 1963. By that standard, Ron Howard should be on the list, since his debut well precedes Hedren's. By that standard, there are hundreds of names you could add to the list. The inclusion of Clint Eastwood is also absurd, as he didn't star in a Hollywood movie until 1968 when he was 38. Fabian Forte and Tuesday Weld, both of whom are 13 years younger than Eastwood, were household names a decade before he was, yet they aren't even on this bogus list. The list even has Zsa Zsa Gabor (!) as a "major figure from classical Hollywood cinema". Unbelievable.

It looks like someone has thought up all the famous or semi-famous performers born within a certain time, and that's the measurement they've used to determine eligibility....regardless of whether the performers were part of "Classical Hollywood" or not. It's ageism and pigeonholing, and it has nothing to do with "Classical Hollywood". Parts of this page have been written by editors who don't even understand what classic Hollywood is.

This isn't going to get resolved without administrative intervention. The talk page is no use. There have been attempts to start a discussion over the years, but nobody ever replies.

If you're going to pick a cutoff, the cutoff should be backed by a consensus. As for the index of actors and actresses deemed "major figures from classical Hollywood cinema", the only names that should be retained are those on AFI's 100 Screen Legends, since it's the only criteria that has been established.

To prevent future abuse, it might be a good idea to remove the "major figures" list altogether. I'm looking through the edit history and no such section even existed until a decade-plus after the article was forked. Namwidow (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

This isn't really a WP:RS issue, since your objection isn't to the reliability or quality of the sources. If there was an active dispute, you could perhaps take it to WP:NPOVN, since the things you mentioned sound like neutrality issues... but there's no real need to do so because so far, nobody has objected to your edits or responded to you on talk (ClueBot is automated and can be ignored in this case; it's not perfect and will sometimes mistakenly react to large removals, since it doesn't know whether you had a valid reason to remove stuff.) If nobody objects to your changes you can just keep making them; if you don't have the time or energy to do so you can tag the article for the various problems you've identified, such as {{citation needed}} tags on uncited things you find dubious, or {{failed verification}} for stuff that isn't verified by the source, or {{original research}} / {{original research inline}} for things you find to be original research, or {{undue}} / {{undue inline}} for things that have undue weight. Administrators can't help fix article content (at least not in an administrative capacity) - if there were an active dispute you could go through various dispute-resolution mechanisms, but chances are the people who made the edits you object to are long-gone anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Banks Irk (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:FORUMSHOPPING. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

tasteatlas

Is this website reliable ?

Some users use this TasteAtlas to claim X cuisine belongs exclusively to X country. Personally, I don’t believe it is, at least when it comes to the country classification of cuisine. Whatsupkarren (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The editorial process is opaque, but clearly a large percentage of the content is user generated. I don't think it is reliable as a source. Banks Irk (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The origin of many foods and cuisine are far to controversial for such a source to be suggestible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Connexionblog

Is Connexionblog a reliable source? The About Us page includes

It is made up of a team of collaborators passionate about entertainment, Finance, Health, Lifestyle and Fashion, Science, Tech & Auto, Travel, Utility, Technology, Agriculture, Bikes And Cars. Without real sections, the content of his blog is structured organically by keywords, thus evolving according to current trends. This content is not own or live reporting on our website. We have received this information from other resources, which we present to all of you in an easy way So that you people can understand easily and need more information, we try to give accurate and beneficial information. [...] Unfortunately, we are not infallible, nor are the informants. We cannot be held responsible for any inaccuracies ...

The specific context is a September 2023 post from this website being offered in an RfC to support inclusion of contentious content, i.e. statements made by Divya Dwivedi in 2019. This post 1) occasionally refers to her as "he" 2) is focused on September 2023 statements made by Dwivedi, 3) briefly mentions some of the 2019 statements without specifically identifying the date or context, 4) refers to Dwivedi as a "Marxist". Can this source be used to help support inclusion of contentious content in a BLP?

Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not a reliable source. It is blog/SEO farm for gambling ads with only one author as far as I can tell, and no indication of staff or editorial oversight. Saying they have a "team of collaborators" could mean their dog, their grandma, and their goldfish. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It's at best a collect blog and so would fall under the rules for self-published sources, specifically 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 (bolding in original). Which is backed up in WP:BLPSPS, "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs (bolding mine). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The Milli Chronicle

Is The Milli Chronicle a reliable source? The About Us page includes

The England-based digital news publication The Milli Chronicle is part of the Milli Chronicle Media Limited (Company number 13684582). Zahack Tanvir is the Director and Founder of Milli Chronicle. Currently, Milli Chronicle is a self-funded project.

The specific context is an October 2019 eight-sentence post without a byline, citing reporting by ThePrint [79], while also appearing to misrepresent/distort the reported contentious content; this source is being offered in support of inclusion of contentious content in an RfC at the Divya Dwivedi article. Can this source be used to help support inclusion of contentious content in a BLP?

Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Its essentially a self published source. Even if the publisher was a SME (he does not appear to be) it can't be used in a BLP. Banks Irk (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

According to "About Us", the site owner has a postgraduate diploma in artificial intelligence. I wonder if they're using AI to generate articles? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The Sportsman

I have a question about The Sportsman as an RS. I've come across this article in it and it appears to copy (but reword) our Twin Towers, Wembley article in the flow of it and inclusion of information. This looks a little like plagiarism to me so I would like to know what others think if this does put The Sportsman's reliability into question or if we do need a proper RFC on it? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The Sportsman article claims to have been published on the 26th of September 2019, this is a comparison of the Wikipedia article as it appeared in the 21st of that month and the Sportsman article. I would say that took "strong inspiration" from the Wikipedia article.
However unless there is anything to show this is a common issue, and not a one of, I don't think it would be enough to change any previous consensus on the Sportsman's reliability. One writer being a bit lazy, and one editor being a bit unobservant, doesn't sink the whole source (it's not a good look though). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Journal of the Asiatic Society

Are references from the Journal of the Asiatic Society considered valid or not ?

https://www.asiaticsocietykolkata.org/publications/journal Pinkish Flowers (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

A little bit of confusion on my part at first, as there is the similarly named "Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society". This appears to be the journal published by The Asiatic Society, which would make it seemingly reliable. But note that sources are only ever generally reliable, not reliable in an absolute sense. It's perfectly possible that a reliable journal has published unreliable articles at some point in it's history. That's why context is important. Has the journals reliablity been questioned, or is there a particular article you want to use to reference specific content? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Echoing AD's comment. This journal is cited as a reference in only six articles, and half of them are about the society itself. Is there a live question about its reliability for any specific statement in a specific article? Context matters. This journal has been around under several names for a very long time, reliability can vary, and some of the earliest editions might fall within the scope of WP:RAJ. Banks Irk (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Verywell Fit and Dotdash Meredith

1. I propose to blacklist Verywell Fit for at least similar reasons as its sister Verywell sites by Dotdash Meredith. The perennial sources list states:

Due to persistent abuse, verywellfamily.com, verywellhealth.com, and verywellmind.com are on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used.

2. I propose to change the designation of Dotdash web sites from "No consensus" to at least one of "Generally unreliable", "Blacklisted", and "Deprecated" and at least with regard to health content.

An example SEO-optimized article currently on the home page of Verywell Fit has paid referral links and claims to rate the "best acupressure mats". This article falsely claims that these mats promote "the free flow of chi (Qi) energy", "prevent imbalances", and "boost circulation". It also relies on practitioners of acupuncture pseudoscience. The page also misleadingly claims that it has been "Medically reviewed" and "Fact checked".

Since Dotdash purchased Meredith and its assets like Time Magazine, it may be a good idea to try to have separate assessments of Dotdash-associated content from Meredith-associated content. I don't think Time Magazine should be considered generally unreliable.

Given the options, perhaps we can discuss before a more focused RFC. ScienceFlyer (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe classing all Verywell 'x' the same is a start, that way it won't be necessary to discuss each new one they setup. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)