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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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 [20]? 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)

* 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)

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 ([21], [22], [23]) are related to the Telegraph's news coverage, of which one ([24]) 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)

The Cradle

Seeking input about TheCradle ([25]). It was previously discussed last year with limited input. I've never heard of it, and I can't find anywhere it's cited by mainstream RS.

It describes itself as "online news magazine covering West Asia" and is user-supported. On its website, there's no masthead or an evidence of editorial oversight, and the language it uses is very biased (e.g., referring to Hamas as "Islamic resistance movement") and it appears to peddle in conspiracies ("a 'Hamas massacre' that may never have happened.". In one of its news articles, it states as fact that "some Israelis were killed by Hamas during the attack, while others were killed as collateral damage by Israeli forces using tanks, drones, and Apache helicopters, and to prevent Hamas from taking them back to Gaza as captives," which is disputed in mainstream RS.

There doesn't seem to be much original reporting, instead mostly selectively aggregating and repackaging content from other sources. Longhornsg (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Where has it been cited? Selfstudier (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s a really bad source but if it’s not being used in WP it’s not really worth discussing here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh we use it quite a lot: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22thecradle.co%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns1=1 First use listed (in Afghanistan article) is a piece by conspiracy theorist Pepe Escobar. This is a dreadful site that’s possibly worse than recently deprecated Al-Mayadeen and we should not be using it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Never heard of or read Pepe Escobar, but calling him a conspiracy theorist seems harsh after scanning his wikiarticle. Mujinga (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the Cradle, he's found a comfortable home for his words at The Unz Review, RT, PressTV, and Sputnik News, among other watering holes of conspiracy theorists and antisemitism peddlers. Longhornsg (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

and yet our article describes him as a "Brazilian journalist and geopolitical analyst" - are you coming with some sort of bias here I wonder? Mujinga (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. Discuss the merits of the sources, and don’t attack editors. Longhornsg (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• "no masthead" - there's clearly a masthead
• "no ... an evidence of editorial oversight" - it's weak for sure but their about exists
• "referring to Hamas as "Islamic resistance movement" - that's its name, as previously mentioned
• "mostly selectively aggregating and repackaging content from other source" - that's not my impression of the site at all, it seems mostly original journalism

Mujinga (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Would you be willing to provide a link to the masthead? I'm having trouble finding their listing of editorial staff, though I can find the names of individual contributors by crawling through the site. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll hazard a guess and say that the difference in use of the term "masthead" in British and American English is the problem here. Ostalgia (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• The Cradle is clearly pro-Palestinian, and therefore a biased source, if that's what you wanted me to say. I'd disagree with pretty much all of your assessment though. For example, we also call Hamas the Islamic Resistance Movement since that's its name. Mujinga (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• The site has an icon "Become an Author", i.e. anyone can contribute after registering. It does not say anything about editorial policies and fact checking. Therefore, it looks to me almost like a blog, i.e. "generally unreliable". It probably should not be used for contentious political topics. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  The "become an author" link is an invitation to pitch a story -- not at all like anyone can contribute. (Also that's not how blogs work?) --100.36.106.199 (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's quite interesting that they chose to write the following passage on their About Us page We chose the name The Cradle as a reminder that the cradle of civilization was borne of this region... West Asia is the start of history in so many ways, but today the region has lost its roots largely because non-sovereign states act as pawns in the geopolitical calculations of The Other (bold mine). They don't say who The Other is but they do lavish praise on those who want to eject The Other on the same page. Possibly I'm paranoid but this reminds me of the rhetoric of some other organisations in "West Asia" whose goals include the obliteration of a certain people. Happy to be proven wrong if they clarify their position elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaexis (talk • contribs) 1919:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  I was thinking more along the lines of this "Other" being the US, but one way or the other this is beside the point. Neither the content nor the names inspire confidence in this outlet. The above mentioned Pepe Escobar is a crackpot and I don't think we should be relying on content from a "news organisation" that lists him as some sort of star columnist. Ostalgia (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's certainly a valid interpretation, just weird they wouldn't write it explicitly. Alaexis_¿question? 20:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've looking into this source more, and I'm just coming up with a bunch of question marks. There's no masthead from what I can tell, and I'm not able to find any sort of evidence of editorial review pre-publication (there are no obvious listings of staff editors, nor listings of editorial standards, nor am I able to find any upon a deeper search). What I'm noticing on many of the pieces, even in their "investigations" section (ex. [26] [27] [28] [29]) is that there's a general label The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.. This is a bit damning for the reliability of what would otherwise be passed off as investigative reporting, since it does not imply that the newsroom of the organization (or its editorial staff) sign off on the reporting.
  From what I can tell, more or less the only recent reports that don't include that label are those written by the "news desk" author ([30]). That all of their non-opinion writing would be handled by an anonymous author is odd, and the lack of apparent editorial oversight on the majority of the other content does not give me confidence. Per our guidelines, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. And frankly I'm not seeing editorial control, and I don't see evidence in this thread that the website has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The lack of apparent editorial oversight, in particular, makes me think that this is a questionable source. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  I never did get an answer to my question of what was the cite or citations that led to the query here so I have looked into it a bit myself and I agree that this source should not be used except for expert opinions that may show up there, per the usual exception for those. Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "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 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) 17:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Per the above vote, I'd support deprecation. Seems to have quite considerable crossover with other, already-deprecated sources, and the weak fact-checking/editorial oversight is rather damning as well. The Kip 23:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Machine-generated text at ScienceDirect used as source

An alarming number of articles (over 1000) currently contain some links to www.sciencedirect.com/topics/, which is a collection of machine-generated pages. Not only machine-generated text isn't a valid source, but referencing such an URL obscures the real source of a piece of information. It's like adding a claim to a medical article and referencing it to "somewhere between the third and the fifth corridor in the medicine section in the library", or "the computer told me", or "an AI thinks so". Nemo 23:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Recently discussed last month: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_417#Elsevier_topics_again. I agree that something needs to be done here. Like Guy said last month, its probably worth creating an edit filter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I second that. The "sources" are basically just online searches. Cortador (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thirded. This is just a selective dynamic search result. Should never be used as a source. Bon courage (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

+1. In deWP chemistry project, we have replaced/removed all occurrences. Over here, it will be quite a workload to get rid of all occurrences. --Leyo 14:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe blacklisting is the way to go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think blacklisting would be the way to go. There will be users that assume these results are static. Just have everyone cite whatever article the information comes from directly. Cortador (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Made an edit filter request, see Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#ScienceDirect_topics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Ontslog.com is reliable source or not?

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

---

https://opendatalab.mn/search/6865917 I have even fact checked their legitimacy. Its 100% trusted news agency that is recognized by Mongolian government. Ontlog.com has even their owen social accounts on various platform, which clearly shows their transparency. The problem is that it is not recognized news outlet outside of Mongolia, which clearly know very little know about. Only way to verify articles on Wikipeia is through such not recognized sources. Gologmine (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gologmine Do you have a link to the masthead or "About Us" page for ontlog.com? That's usually more telling as far as who the editorial staff is and what their policy is on accuracy than a company registration page. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

https://ontslog.com/about

https://ontslog.com/terms

they are all written in Mongolian. I guess you need to use translator. editoral staff is not introduced. But I asked them personally via their FB page. Anyone is free to contact them, if having doubts. Gologmine (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

In the terms page, they are clearly stating that they are fully responsible for what they are publishing and stating also that their materials are all according to the law. In the about page you can see their contact information and company's name that is registered to state. In opendatalab.mn(State opereated public data base) you can find this company by its name and will find its even reeisteration number. I dont think someone would establish a company just to lie about entertainment insdustry. Gologmine (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gologmine It also states that they accept third-party material that they disclaim responsibility for, so it's probably important to look closely at the bylines and attribution of pages. So I don't think we can make a blanket statement without looking at some specific pages out of the site. —C.Fred (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

So its reliable or not? Gologmine (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Context is important. You need to supply the exact article in the source, the article you are going to use it in, and for what claim are you going to make with the source. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The context appears to be related to this edit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

That it does, yes. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 14:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the source that commenced the discussion on their talk page: https://ontslog-com.translate.goog/entertainment/entertainment-celebrities/5657?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That seems to clearly be the "third-party" material alluded to in their terms; an anonymous tabloid listicle. Most of the other articles from that account are pretty sketchy (please don't add this material from the same author to our article at arthritis noting the condition is now cured by pineapple smoothies). Some of your (Gologmine's) statements are curious; just registering an entity with the state does not make it reliable in any way. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Can't agree with you more. then we should not consider all the articles from fancy news outlets as reliable. In this specific case, the article from ontslog.com is pretty much reliable. Some dedicated his/her time to make that list. Nothing against rules. Cause CNN or BBC would never make article of celebrities about their social account followers. Such low level Buzzfeed like outlets would only do an article on this very subject. Gologmine (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I suspect there's a language barrier here. Please allow me to be very clear: this is not a reliable source, at all. It is very much against our rules to source material to this. Do not add this as a reference. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Then how can I insert information about someone's social accounts on wikipedia? Gologmine (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to your talk page, where I have attempted to answer that very question for you I believe twice. Specifically, see my response at 18:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC). CommissarDoggo^Talk? 16:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

https://edition.cnn.com/ this is the true example of how unreliable source looks like. Gologmine (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Please stop resorting to whataboutism, it's becoming rather tiring at this point. If you wish to discuss CNN's value as a source, please take that up in another discussion. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 16:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Is Kyiv Post or MEMRI right?

Kyiv Post wrote that Hamas relies on the support of its allies, including major powers such as Russia and China, Mashal stated in an interview with an Egyptian TV channel. They provided a link to a video by MEMRI which contains the translation of the interview from Arabic to English. The problem is that Mashal does not say that Russia and China are Hamas's allies and also does not say that they got support from them. He starts talking about Russia and China at 0:50. Can someone check the original interview? Alaexis_¿question? 21:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

As with all things MEMRI, you simply cannot trust that they have not completely cut out of context the material they post or that they have not fabricated the translation. You would need the original interview, absent MEMRI's creative editing, to see that. And we shouldn't be basing our articles on interviews that secondary sources have not analyzed anyway. nableezy - 22:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely what I'm asking, to check whether he said anything about allies or support in the original interview. Alaexis_¿question? 08:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

My own reading is that the statement is ambiguous, you can also interpret it as the section in the commas being the Kyiv Post's addition (you would normally see it done like this, but you will also see commas) and only "Hamas relies on the support of its allies" is actually being attributed to Mashal. In that case it would be read as Mashal saying that Hamas relies on its allies and the Kyiv Post saying that its allies include Russia and China (something which I don't think anyone would challenge). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

It's possible, but half of the problem remains as the translation doesn't say anything about China and Russia supporting Hamas. Alaexis_¿question? 08:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

A MEMRI translation on an Israel related matter is not something to be relied on. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Have you read my question? I'm asking about a specific interview given to the Egyptian Sada El-Balad channel. Did Mashal say anything about allies or support or not? Alaexis_¿question? 12:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You mentioned the translation, that's what I am responding to. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

If the question is "is MEMRI reliable?" the answer is unequivocally no... But I stand by my interpretation of this as a misreading of an ambiguous situation not one where we need to ask that question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The question was Can someone check the original interview? to see what Mashal actually said. Alaexis_¿question? 18:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

And the answer I would provide is that if you have to do OR to figure out what to say you should look for a different source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is it OR? I cannot verify a source (Mashal's interview to Sada El-Balad channel) myself and ask other editors to do it. Alaexis_¿question? 07:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not. --JBL (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The source you're asking us to verify is the Kiev Post, not Mashal's interview to Sada El-Balad channel. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

If that part is not attributed to the translation then why does the problem remain at all? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This source was used on Wikipedia and since I don't know Arabic well enough to understand Mashal's words, I'd like to know what he actually said. Alaexis_¿question? 18:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Which of the three sources was used on wikipedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the primary source (the interview) has been misrepresented by Kyiv Post. M.Bitton (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to confirm, are you saying this having listened to what Mashal was saying in Arabic or because you trust MEMRI as a source? Alaexis_¿question? 18:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

After watching the video repeatedly and carefully reading the Kyiv Post article, I concur that Kyiv Post misrepresented the MEMRI video. They misinterpreted the subtitle context, and I would be willing to upload the full video with Arabic and English subtitles if the copyright holder of the original video agrees to publish it on Wikimedia Commons. QalasQalas (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I think that for now it's enough that we know what has been said. I've removed the Kyiv Post article from the article in which it was used. Alaexis_¿question? 13:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Sports Illustrated

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

---

What is the reliability of Sports Illustrated?

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

Apologies for any issues with this filing, as I've never actually opened an RfC before. Anyhow, as per the discussion going on here, SI was recently caught utilizing AI-generated writers, although they deny any published articles were AI-written. SI is used extensively on WP, albeit obviously many of these articles predate this AI experiment. As noted by @InfiniteNexus in the linked discussion, CNET did similar earlier this year and its post-2020 acquisition content promptly got deprecated as a result. Should we consider doing the same? The Kip 07:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment as nominator, I personally side with option 2. SI does generally put out solid-enough content, and is often utilized by other sports media; however, even the possibility of AI-generated content deprives it of assumed reliability. I don't see a huge issue with its content being used provided editors are vigilant; they might want to look into the author of the article(s) to confirm humanity, and/or verify the content of the article(s) before adding as a source. The Kip 07:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2. Given the widespread ubiquity of Sports Illustrated's acceptance as reliable up to this point, and given the seriousness of problems that will arise from attributing past reliability to current (often hidden) AI production, I think this warrants quicker action that having to wait for multiple discussions (doesn't WP:COMMON indicate that dogmatically holding to the "rules" here is perhaps not the best idea?). I think it would be best to note the outlet as "special considerations apply", as "marginally reliable" in circumstances where the authorship can be easily determined to be a human. This is important to be noted for this source specifically (as it should be for each source found to be using AI) because the very decision to deceptively use AI for generation and authorship is indicative of broader reliability problems beyond the specific articles generated via AI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinchme123 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Is an RfC needed here? I'm not seeing the "repeated discussion" of this source required for an RfC to be held. I would also suggest a general discussion on how to use sources that incorporate AI-generated content would be more beneficial that discussing the individual sources one-by-one. BilledMammal (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

See WT:Reliable sources#Use of AI content generation by previously reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree that a RFC is not in order. The linked discussion above is a better place to try to resolve the issue, which isn't confined to SI. Banks Irk (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ll reiterate I’m not exactly experienced with the RfC process, so if closing is in order I’m perfectly okay with that. The Kip 21:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

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

request for third-party suitability check

May I ask for a third-party evaluation of this site as a reliable source: https://kyband.com/information/about-us/ (FWIW, it strikes me as a fan site.) — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Definitely user-generated content. It invites people to submit the content, posted without editorial oversight. Banks Irk (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Business Insider and Wikipedia mirroring

I'm looking at [31], which flagged here as a potential copyvio related to Quantitative easing. It's obviously a case of copying Wikipedia; the particular page appears to be a properly labeled Wikipedia mirror, which I had never noticed before on Business Insider.

Has anyone else encountered a page like this in the wild on BI? It's not the strangest thing, and presenting this sort of page transparently as a mirror is the sort of thing we'd want any mirror to do. But, if there are other sorts of pages like this on BI that are labeled Wikipedia mirrors, it might be worth noting that there are occasional Wikipedia mirrors on the website's RSP entry. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

To give them their due it is clearly labelled. I would hope that editors can handle clearly labelled WP:CIRCULAR sources, so I'm not sure if RSP needs updating but it is an odd thing for BI to be posting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

If it's clearly labelled then it's not a reliable sourcing problem. WP:RSP is supposed to be for frequently discussed sources, not a compendium of all sources used on this site. We don't need to bloat it any further. Anyone who doesn't have the ability to read the first sentence of a newspaper is not someone that will be helped by adding another sentence to RSP. People who don't read are also unlikely to be editing Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

9/11 Commission Report

Is the 9/11 Commission credible about the planning of the September 11 attacks? The following three sources contradict the report.

[32][33][34]

Also, they used torture to a great extent, which questioned the credibility of the commission. See also Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Parham wiki (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I doubt that this is a question for RSN. Is the Commission or its report used as a source in a specific article? If so, for what? Banks Irk (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Banks Irk, Yes, the report is used in articles related to September 11 attacks, Iran and Al-Qaeda, and my question is, is the report of the commission about the planning of the September 11 attacks valid? Parham wiki (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The report was 20 years ago. Historians will have covered every detail by now and affirmed or challenged anything you wish to cite. Then the proper citation would be primary-secondary: "Historian p. AA, citing 9/11 commission p. BB". SamuelRiv (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Contradicted on what? Generally speaking, the report has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. But as SamuelRiv points out, the source is 20 years old and historians have had enough time contradict the report if new information has become available. Is there something specific you think is not correct? Which article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge, The 9/11 Commission identified Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the mastermind of the attacks and said that the idea dates back to 1996 and that planning began in late 1998 or early 1999, but al-Qaeda and a document in Bin Laden's home released by the CIA show that Bin Laden (and not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) is the mastermind behind the attacks and the start date is different from the 9/11 Commission Report.

In some paragraphs in the articles Planning of the September 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Timeline of the September 11 attacks, the report is stated as fact. Parham wiki (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

If different reliable sources don't agree on details it's usually something best discussed in text, e.g. the 9/11 report say it was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed but other later sources say it was in fact Bin Laden (obviously not those exact words, but you get the idea). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Parham wiki (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

At this point the 9/11 Commission Report should be considered a primary source for WP purposes, and a CIA-released document from a raid will always be a primary source. Again, ideally such sources should by this point now only be referenced via internal citation of a history article or book. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. At this point in time, the report should be treated as a primary source, and references should be to secondary sources reporting on its findings. Which is a separate issue from its reliability. Banks Irk (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@User:Parham wiki: Thank you, that helps. The question I would ask is what do other sources say about the matter? Especially modern sources. Do they now say that Osama Bin Laden instead of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the "mastermind" or "architect" of 9/11? Is this is the commonly accepted account scholarly sources? If so, yes, I would say we should look into changing our articles to match our current understanding.

But we should be careful in reading and understanding what sources are actually saying. The Independent article you cited in your first post doesn't say that Bin Laden (not Mohammed) was the mastermind behind 9/11. Instead, it's reporting what Al Qaeda propaganda is claiming. There's a big difference between 'source says a" and 'source says a says b'.

Also, keep in mind that this is a bit nebulous in that "mastermind" and "principle architect" aren't exactly job titles. The Al Qaeda source (as reported by the Independent) seems to be more about who first had the idea to crash planes into buildings. I'm not sure if who had the idea first is the same thing as "mastermind" or "principle architect". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, government reports like that would be considered primary sources and would best be covered via the best available secondary sources. It's also 20 years old now so in situations where high-quality secondary sources disagree with it on one detail or another (especially stuff where new information might have come to light) we should generally go with the secondary sources. That said, it's an important enough report that I would expect that modern secondary sources would still note what it says even if they disagree, in which case we'd probably cover the disagreement or the way in which things changed or whatever based on what the overall sources say. It may also make sense to use attribution, especially when citing it via a secondary source that uses attribution for it (ie. if a secondary source says "the 9/11 commission report concluded..." then we should reflect that attribution rather than stating its conclusions as fact.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Fearless: Wilma Soss and America's Forgotten Investor Movement

Trying to determine the reliability of Fearless: Wilma Soss and America's Forgotten Investor Movement for a biographical article, on Soss and others. The authors seem to be reputable, but I've never heard of the publisher. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

All Seasons is apparently a new publisher which claims "to take head-on the cancel culture that is destroying the publishing industry and the country" ([35]). The founders apparently have a publishing background, but it's small enough and new enough that I don't know it can have established a reputation for reliability yet. Given the authors, I would expect the book to be broadly reliable as a source about Soss, but you do have to wonder why they didn't choose a more mainstream, less polemically-based publisher. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

That would be my concern as well... Publishing with a fringe outlet suggests that they were rejected by more respected and established outlets... I would attribute to the authors if used. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Judging by this bit of drama which is currently the top thing linked to on the front page of the publisher's source, the press is underwritten by hedge fund guy Scott Bessent. As with many underwritten-by-the-wealthy media projects, they may well be choosing to overpay for material while they establish reputation (if I can use a now-outdated-by-inflation saying, the best way to build a million dollar publishing house is to start with ten million dollars.) They are getting recognizable political authors, and the advance they were paying Lee Smith (journalist) is neither "oh wow" money nor is it nothing. So I wouldn't assume that the authors failed at other presses; they may have been courted by this one who may have been willing to outbid. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

amazinglanka.com

The website amazinglanka.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com was formerly an Angelfire site www.angelfire.com/in4 - it was user generated then and I see no sign it's changed, but it's cited in 146 articles. I'm pretty sure it's just a random website, but does anyone know better? Guy (help! - typo?) 18:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

No section about the site, no editorial policy, no additional information. It's basically a Sri Lanka fan site, and as such not reliable. Cortador (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Gurjar (contentious Aryan theory)

I am doubtful about the reliability of these two sources. They are currently cited in the lead section of the Gurjar article and both of them contain the contentious Aryan race theories. Here is the detal.

• Thakur, U. (1974). Some Aspects of Ancient Indian History and Culture. Abhinav Publications. ISBN 978-0-88386-289-6. Retrieved 2023-12-06.

• Warikoo, K.; Som, S. (2000). Gujjars of Jammu and Kashmir. Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya. Retrieved 2023-12-06.

Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 05:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Alethea#Jodie_Foster-Alethea

Discussion about using a blog as a source, your opinion is welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Winteriscoming.net

Winteriscoming.net is a FanSided website which, according to their about page, started life as a humble game of thrones blog, but is now a genuine digital news website, reporting on pop culture from star-wars to the wheel of time listing a publisher, editor, and staff writers.

However... it is still a FanSided website, and just going off a gut feel it still feels like a blog, albeit a blog run by multiple people. The website is surprisingly frequently cited and as such I would like to know if they are an acceptable source or not. Scu ba (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm dubious. Although they list a couple of editorial staff, in reality they work on multiple fanside sites handling the inflow of volunteer content. The articles written by the two editors[36][37] may pass WP:SPS, but I would be very cautious with anything else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Doctor Who News

https://www.doctorwhonews.net/p/about-us.html They claim to be a sucsessor to Outpost Gallifrey which was seen as relialbe. This source is frequently used on Doctor Who pages. Some of them being GA, like Doctor Who (series 1), Doctor Who (series 11) and various others. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

We would need to know in what context this site is considered a successor? There would be a bit difference if a fan With no connection to Outpost Gallifrey was inspired to create their own fan page after discovering the original shut down and if several key staff from Outpost Gallifrey decided to start over and make a spiritual successor. In other wolds is this a self professed successor or is there an actual linage.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Following the shut down the news page "migrated over". Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Unconvinced. Nearly every "news story" is posted by a single person (Marcus) and a number of them are pretty much straight reprints of press releases or news reports from other sources. It's fairly obvious since they don't have any issue using copyrighted images to illustrate their stories. I don't see anything here that (a) makes this source reliable, or (b) contains any information that couldn't be sourced elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The claim's are ratings for series 2 of Doctor Who which arent found anywhere else. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

They can claim whatever they like, is there any evidence they are in fact a successor to Outpost Gallifrey? Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

More to the point, is there any evidence that this particular website has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Where are they discussed/cited in RS? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of Har-Anand Publications

Is this a reliable source? Sindh: Land of Hope and Glory Imperial^[AFCND] 17:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Context is required. What content in the book is proposed to be used as a source, for what purpose in what article? Is there a live dispute regarding the source? Banks Irk (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Now I see what you're asking about looking at your posting history. It is a disservice to other editors at RSN to make us do our own investigation into why a source is being questioned. Bottom line, you are misapplying WP:Primary. If a reliable secondary source says "Primary Source X says there were 5000 Ys at Battle Z" it is perfectly acceptable to use the source to report that as what Source X said, which is what the edit you reverted did. That was wrong. It is not the same thing as saying in Wikipedia's voice "There were 5000 Ys at Battle Z". Also, primary sources are not prohibited where they are supported by secondary sources. Where in the article body vs info box that information is included in not an issue for RSN.Banks Irk (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh. In that article, there were already cited informations which give the strength of battles. An user used books from Notion press which are considered unreliable as per the discussion over here. He used this source too, and that made me ask here if we can use that book source because after reading that book, I couldn't find citing primary sources within in book. Imperial^[AFCND] 01:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, I couldn't find which primary source is being supported by this book. That is why I questioned the reliability of the book. Could you please check it? Imperial^[AFCND] 01:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no access to the book, and I cannot find any information on its authors online. The publisher seems reputable, so I have no basis to question the source. Banks Irk (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

NewsRuss.com

Main page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Andrey Nechayev

newsruss.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com An evaluation of NewsRuss.com, used to source some highly accusatory content, would be helpful. Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Context? The question is meaningless without it. Don't make us investigate what you're inquiring about. Banks Irk (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Banner blindness striking again, is it? ☺ There's a link right at the top of this section to the context. Uncle G (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

    Sorry. No idea. The link in the archived reference is to JACTA, not newsruss.com to and the link at the bottom of the JACTA article is a dead link. I can't find any in information on either JACTA or newsruss.com, and I don't read Russian. There are a number of other sites that have newsruss as part of their URL, but I assume those dre different sites. Banks Irk (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

    Although the article itself isn't archived (only the repost by Jacta[38]), some of Newsruss.com's other articles are. Takes these two for instance[39][40], both are clearly in the pro-Putin propaganda camp (protestors have no real plans so for democracy vote Putin, and the journalist covering Pussy Riot demonstrations are part of a conspiracy). I would suggest a lot of caution with either Newsruss or Jacta, as both my be heavily biased. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Not reliable, responded at the BLP noticeboard. Alaexis_¿question? 21:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• The domain doesn't even resolve for me, can anyone else see it? And newsruss.ru is a Wiki. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Same here. I can't find it anywhere except at Internet Archive. I assume it's defunct. Banks Irk (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Portions of several texts on Marquis De Sade disputed as unreliable for being poorly sourced

Hi. There is contention about how to describe various texts for Marquis de Sade. Many texts are unreliable and poorly sourced to the extent that they claim wrongdoing was perpetuated by De Sade: Currently, no one is able to show such claims of wrongdoing in these sources to be adequately sourced themselves.

And notably, John Phillips in “How to Read Sade” (New York: W. W. Norton and Company (2005)), states "there is no reason to believe that any of this behaviour involved compulsion” on p. 17 in describing all the ethically relevant behavior De Sade engaged in. Please review the discussion in Talk:Marquis de Sade#Controversy for the full context. I’ve suggested proposed phrasing to resolve this issue in a reply there. Thanks much for your assistance. PNople (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you also give the opposing sources? The ones that say wrongdoing was done by De Sade? Loki (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe all the sources and their relevant quotes are in Marquis de Sade#Controversy. Would you like me to copy that info here? PNople (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Loki (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure:

== Controversy ==

Marshall writes that Sade's “known behaviour includes only the beating of a housemaid and an orgy with several prostitutes–significantly departing from the clinical definition of sadism.” Phillips states "there is no reason to believe that any of this behaviour involved compulsion." Dworkin, however, argues that the issue is whether one believes Sade or his female accusers and that admirers of Sade "attempt to justify, trivialize, or deny (even though records confirming the facts exist) every assault Sade ever committed against women and girls." Gray states that Sade engaged in "psychic terrorism" and that "Sade's brand of sadism was often more mental than corporeal." According to Bongie, Sade perpetrated "crimes of physical violence committed during sexual assaults on hapless prostitutes. Such assaults, aggravated by death threats and the element of recidivism, could easily get an offender into similar difficulties today."

== And this 4th paragraph from the lead is also relevant: ==

There is debate over the extent to which Sade's behavior was criminal and sadistic. Marshall states that Sade's "known behavior includes only the beating of a housemaid and an orgy with several prostitutes—significantly departing from the clinical definition of sadism." Dworkin, however, argues that the issue is whether one believes Sade or the women who accused him of sexual assault.

== Works cited ==

• Bongie, Laurence Louis (1998). Sade: A Biographical Essay. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-06420-4.
• Camus, Albert (1953). The Rebel. Translated by Bower, Anthony. London: Hamish Hamilton.
• Carter, Angela (1978). The Sadeian Woman and the Ideology of Pornography. New York: Pantheon Books. ISBN 0-394-75893-5.
• Crocker, Lester G. (1963). Nature and Culture: Ethical Thought in the French Enlightenment. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
• Dworkin, Andrea (1981). Pornography: Men Possessing Women. London: The Women's Press. ISBN 0-7043-3876-9.
• Gorer, Geoffrey (1964). The Revolutionary Ideas of the Marquis de Sade (3rd ed.). London: Panther Books.
• Gray, Francine du Plessix (1998). At Home with the Marquis de Sade: a life. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-80007-1.
• Lever, Maurice (1993). Marquis de Sade, a biography. Translated by Goldhammer, Arthur. London: Harper Collins. ISBN 0-246-13666-9.
• Love, Brenda (2002). The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices. London: Abacus. ISBN 978-0-349-11535-1.
• Marshall, Peter (2008). Demanding the impossible: a history of Anarchism. Oakland: PM Press. ISBN 978-1-60486-064-1.
• Paglia, Camille (1990). Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson. New York: Vintage. ISBN 0-679-73579-8.
• Phillips, John (2005). How to Read Sade. New York: W. W. Norton and Company. ISBN 0-393-32822-8.
• Queenan, Joe (2004). Malcontents. Philadelphia: Running Press. ISBN 978-0-7624-1697-4.
• Sade, Donatien Alphonse François, Marquis de (1965). Seaver, Richard; Wainhouse, Austryn (eds.). The Complete Justine, Philosophy in the Bedroom and other writings. Grove Press.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Schaeffer, Neal (2000). The Marquis de Sade: a Life. New York City: Knopf Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-67400-392-7.
• Shattuck, Roger (1996). Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to Pornography. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-14602-7.

PNople (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

How Do I Permanently Remove My Account’s Ability to Edit ASAP? I’ve Encountered Too Many Rude And Unhelpful Editors i.e.@Banks Irk Lacking Critical Thinking Basics, Or Curiosity To Learn. Help me Permanently Lose My Ability to Edit ASAP! From @ PNople PNople (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, you can't dismiss a source as unreliable just because you think what it says is wrong, or even because you have other sources that disagree with it; that leads to No True Scotsman problems along the lines of "no reliable source says X!", "Well, here's a reliable source that says X!", "That source says X, therefore it is unreliable!" If there's disagreement among the sources then we'd weigh them against each other and cover it with weight and focus based on how much each side in the disagreement deserves - sometimes something is so WP:FRINGE that we might dismiss sources advancing that perspective, but it requires a much more sweeping analysis and not just "sources exist that say Y." If there are other problems with the sources (ie. it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; or it's self-published or poorly published; or if it doesn't say what people say it does; or things like that) then that's a different matter, but "here's another source that disagrees with that one on that point" is not itself an RS issue - sources disagree on things all the time, especially fairly intricate historical controversies like this one. --Aquillion (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for your reply. Sorry, I should’ve said this more clearly: Please read the entire talk discussion under that Controversy section I linked to.

  I did as much as I could to do the analysis you’re talking about here. I’m very glad you mentioned a logical fallacy here, as I want to do that type of thorough factual analysis via critical thinking, etc.. My argument is definitely not that it’s true because I think it’s true, that would be entirely counterproductive. I’m not engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy, you’ll see my arguments on the talk page. Though as we discuss, please point out any logical fallacies you think I’m engaging in, and I’ll my best to address each concern. PNople (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I’m interested to see your response @Aquillion, as the response by Banks Irk has been lacking and rude as I outlined. It seems you’re interested in critical thinking and have an idea of how the logical fallacies work, which is promising to me. Hope to discuss with you. PNople (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  How Do I Permanently Remove My Account’s Ability to Edit ASAP? I’ve Encountered Too Many Rude And Unhelpful Editors i.e.@Banks Irk Lacking Critical Thinking Basics, Or Curiosity To Learn. Help me Permanently Lose My Ability to Edit ASAP! From @ PNople PNople (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• You misunderstand or misinterpret WP:Primary and WP: Secondary and your proposed insert challenging the conclusions of secondary sources is WP:OR. There is nothing unreliable about the cited sources, and the current text appropriately summarizes them. Banks Irk (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  It’s rude to me for you to state that I misunderstand or misinterpret anything. That’s inappropriate here and not productive to our discussion. And I believe it’s false. If you ever cite policies or any sources, you need to cite with particularity and where they apply, which you haven’t done.

  Regardless, I disagree with your conclusory statement. There is plenty unreliable with the stated sources. You need to read that entire talk discussion and address my arguments directly, which you haven’t done.

  Because of your rudeness, I’m more interested in what other considerate editors have to say. But I will address all your statements directly as I’ve done here. PNople (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry if I have offended you. What non-rude words would you prefer to convey that your arguments are completely wrong and contradict WP:RS, which is what you've already been told at the article talkpage by other editors? Banks Irk (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Banks IrkYou’re violating the logical fallacy of ad populum here by concluding that if more people say something, it makes it true. You’re still being rude and not addressing my arguments and concerns. I’m not interested in discussing with you more unless it’s absolutely required by admins. Take care. PNople (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, I'm not invoking an informal fallacy. I'm suggesting that the subsection of WP: Disruptive Editing, specifically WP:Listen, applies. I note that you're a WP:SPA with no experience outside the single article you're focused on for 3 years. Familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:Bludgeon before continuing. We're done here. Banks Irk (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  None of that was helpful to us, or particular as I requested. And is still rude. Please don’t respond to me again. PNople (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  PNople, I have removed what you just posted on Banks Irk: you can't complain about what they are telling you, and say "don't respond to me again" (which you can't say on a board like this anyway), and then post on their talk page. At the least that's passive-aggressive. Second, and I have looked over this thread and the talk page, there seems to be no "contention" at all: there is just you, and you disagree with a couple of other editors. You also just do not seem to understand what it means for secondary sources to be reliable, so reliable that we use them as the basis for writing up these articles. I have not yet looked at what you did in the article, but I will say that it is very unlikely that this thread is going to gain much traction, sorry. Finally, if you wish to give up on Wikipedia, just walk away. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  How Do I Permanently Remove My Account’s Ability to Edit ASAP? I’ve Encountered Too Many Rude And Unhelpful Editors i.e.@Banks Irk Lacking Critical Thinking Basics, Or Curiosity To Learn. Help me Permanently Lose My Ability to Edit ASAP! From @ PNople PNople (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Any wikipedian may step away from the keyboard at any time they choose. BusterD (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've indef blocked this user because after leaving here they posted the same screed in a number of pagespaces. If they want to know how to stop editing; I've done that for them this time. BusterD (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Even if the OP was banned, I think it's appropriate to note that it was Banks Irk's "rude", "inappropriate" and overall dismissive attitude - which I do agree was rude, inappropriate and dismissive ("What non-rude words would you prefer to convey that your arguments are completely wrong") - that created this whole situation. @Banks Irk: users come to this page for help and advice. If you can't do that without being rude and argumentative, then you probably need to let others provide said help and advice. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Banks Irk said "You misunderstand or misinterpret WP:Primary and WP: Secondary", Homeostasis07. That's neither rude nor argumentative. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

But accusing a user of misrepresenting or misinterpreting WP:Primary and WP:Secondary is indeed rude and borderline uncivil. There is nothing here in this thread to warrant the jumping-down-the-throat that Banks Irk responded with, such as describing the user an SPA. If you don't have the temperament to provide help on a help page in a civil, non-combative manner, then go elsewhere. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The simple act of letting someone know they are wrong isn't rude or uncivil in and of itself. If it were it would be impossible to have any substantive discussion. MrOllie (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. I did not say that they misrepresented RS, but that they misunderstood or misinterpreted it. The former might suggest a level of prevarication, but I made no such statement. If an editor just absolutely refuses to listen to what every single other editor is telling them about an issue, and they take offense at being told that they're wrong, that's on them, not the editors telling them that they're wrong. Banks Irk (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"We're done here." Or is that statement rude and uncollaborative? If so, I immediately apologize. But I note it's a phrase Banks Irk has snapped on more than one occasion. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have an issue with an editor RSN isn't the pace to bring it up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. Outside of WP:BOLD, I don't see anything User:Banks Irk has done to warrant further heckling. This isn't the forum for it anyway. BusterD (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Is chosun.com a reliable source for articles about North Korea?

I saw the following text at North Korean cult of personality:

After the death of Kim Jong Il the government began to inscribe his name on each of the obelisks and build new statues in his image.

The source states that this is "according to an informed source".

The Wikipedia page on The Chosun Ilbo#Controversies actually does a good enough job explaining how this publication goofs up with unnamed sources with a bent against North Korea.

Thanks so much for all your help.Stix1776 (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Good catch. In such cases, or even edge cases, you should definitely attribute in-text in-line: "The Chosun Ibo reported in 200x that ..." or "According to ...". SamuelRiv (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

chosun.com is a newspaper and therefore even if rs is only reliable for news reporting. See WP:NEWSORG. It is not rs for analysis of NK's government. It's opinions should only be reported if they are covered in secondary sources. For example, an academic paper about NK could say chosun routinely refers to the style of leadership as a personality cult. TFD (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliability issue

Please check the issue goin on the article Battle of Aror whereas the problem is with the reliability of the sources using. Go through the talk section to get more info about the issue and please make a conclusion in order to avoid edit warring. Thank you. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

No. Not going to do that. Please read the instructions above. Ask a simple question: "Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article?" Banks Irk (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Is The Cambridge History of India: Turks and Afghans is reliable for making the statement Raja Dahir had 50,000 horsemen in the article Battle of Aror. Or

Is Spread of Islam Throughout the World is reliable for making the same statement in the same article? Imperial^[AFCND] 19:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes and yes. And if a different source has a different number it may also be reliable, in which case we report and attribute both figures. Banks Irk (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. But an editor refused to accept this, even questioning the reliability, pointing out that there are no inline citations that provides primary sources in the books, and removed it. Recently I added both figures, and he/she again removed it. That is why I made the first comment. Imperial^[AFCND] 05:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add reasoning behind this .

For the details of this particular battles our only primary source is book named 'chachanama' . Chachanama is considered a benchmark for sindhi history as it is a very detailed account. Pretty much every modern scholar refers to it while writing about the details. This 25k numbers pretty much comes from there , as most modern scholars accept it , though some considers it exaggerated. The one I have cited has used this source only.

Coming back to cambridge and K.S lal , none of them has provided a source or a citation in their work for their statement. Obviously one don't usually doubt the reliability of cambridge statement in their work , but it becomes hard to follow when it is clearly contradicted by pretty much every scholar who actually has provided source for their statement (pretty much chachanama only) citing only 20-25k men.

Finally I'm saying we can't be adding statement of cambridge book here , who is neither cited or provided any source for their statement to verify over the pretty much all the scholars who have provided source for their statement i.e very primary sources like chachanama (the only one).

The reliability of a any book be it cambridge or anyone becomes less when it itself hasn't provided any source for their statement

Thank you Summerkillsme (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

That is an incorrect approach to secondary sources. We do not vet the sources that they themselves used. This seems to be a recurring misconception running through several of the above discussions on the current page here. If there are multiple sources reporting different figures, we reflect those differences with attribution; we don't exclude the sources with which we disagree (subject to considerations like WP:Fringe, which doesn't appear to be relevant here). Banks Irk (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

obviously , this is not the case and not what I'm referring to .

I could possibly give you 100's of references of dahir's army in this particular battle and every historian who has worked on this are well aware the of numbers reported in sources which we have and that's what they refer in their work .

Some even considers 20-25k as an exaggeration

And obviously you are wrong at ' we do not vet sources they themselves used ' . Secondary sources must be based on some sort of primary source itself , (more importantly when it is related to numbers)

Cambridge statement in this case do not have any primary information cited to it ,.

The fact that these two has no primary source attached to it ,and is extremely ridiculous numbers which hasn't been cited by a single historian till day who has actually referred to primary sources in their work .

We can't be hovering over one statement in complete absence of any evidence when 1000 others are referring to completely same result with actual evidence.

The book is dated to 1920-30's and I would like to point out more about this. Summerkillsme (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

See WP:AGEMATTERS, if newer academic sources use different numbers than those should probably be used. However just to comment on primary sources, they are not the "truth" as any historian would tell you and if professional historians interpret or decide to dismiss primary sources it isn't up to Wikipedia editors to disagree. It quite common for primary sources to state numbers that bare no relation to actual fact, and wouldn't have been possible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Trade Register

Is Trade register (https://web.archive.org/web/20100414022558/http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php) a reliable source for lists reflecting the equiment of respective countries? Onesgje9g334 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

SIPRI is a very reliable source for information on the transfer of weapons, you would need to include details in the reference of how to get the information used as it has to be downloaded each time. An archive of the site at archive.org is pointless, as the site won't work correctly (the database itself is not archived, only the web interface). Finally it's not a reliable source of ownership on any of the weapons or weapon systems, as they don't track the destruction or scrapping on any of the materials (or further sales that aren't reported), so it's only good for referencing the details of the transfer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Land Transport Guru

I'm working on an article and I need some info from LTG in here, here and here. For context, LTG is a transport enthusiast run website, and there were previous discussions on whether it should be considered reliable (here and here) on grounds that it is a WP:SPS. However it's also been quoted & referenced by local media a number of times on transport-related news [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] (I'm only including articles on buses since that's what my article dealing with, there's quite a bit more if you look at rail articles too), which to me satisfies WP:UBO. Considering that there are certain statements that are not reported anywhere else, can I use LTG as a reference to those statements? S5A-0043^Talk 03:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• This is, as you say, a self-published source by self-described enthusiasts. The authors and editors are not identified; there is no description of editorial oversight. There is no basis to claim they are experts, and no indication that they have been previously published by other reliable sources within the scope of that expertise. That it is cited in articles by other sources would suggest that those other sources should be used instead. So, no, it is not a reliable source. Banks Irk (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think you might've missed the last sentence: Considering that there are certain statements that are not reported anywhere else, can I use LTG as a reference to those statements? The "other sources" are on previous cases which did not happen in this case, and I would use the other sources where available and as much as possible. However, in this case, I can't, because only LTG reported on the "certain statements" I referred to. S5A-0043^Talk 04:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  And just to add on to clear any misunderstandings, I'm not exactly asking whether LTG should be used (or is reliable) in general. I'm asking whether it can be used in this context only. S5A-0043^Talk 04:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

By the way I'll ping the editors involved in the previous discussions since I brought this up again: @ZKang123 @Thryduulf @Brachy0008 @ActivelyDisinterested. S5A-0043^Talk 04:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

If this is the only source for a statement, then that statement should not be included in a Wikipedia article. Banks Irk (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to use LTG, because usually you can use other sources as reference. And usually I do not include statements that are solely from LTG (e.g. platform layouts) because they also veer close to very trivial information that's not within the scope of Wikipedia.

Also most of the media sources you bring up are not reliable (mothership, vulcanpost).--ZKang123 (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Best not to use it. Especially to add exit information. Brachy08 _(Talk) 10:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. It's best to regard it as an Unreliable source. Brachy08 _(Talk) 10:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the three pages you link to in your first comment, the first two appear to be trivial fleet changes so almost certainly not encyclopaedic regardless of the quality of the source but definitely so if this is the only source. The third source is slightly different - if "The Bus Collective" is notable (this does not go any way towards establishing that and I've not investigated any further) then it might be usable to verify some factual information if there is no better source for it. If you aren't writing about The Bus Collective though then I don't see anything there that is likely to be encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s actually, it. I’ll take your advice (and of course those above too). Thanks a lot y’alls. S5A-0043^Talk 16:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Fixing Citoid (the Wikipedia Cite tool) for YouTube videos

Hi all

This isn't about a specific reliable source, but it is effecting the ability to cite reliable sources and the quality of the citation. Youtube is the second most popular website in the world, with a huge number of reliable news sources using it as a platform for sharing video. Unfortunately Citoid doesn't work properly for creating refs for Youtube currently. This leads to poor quality labelling of references being made, and while there are some templates to specifically cite video content, they aren't user friendly at all. I started a Phabricator ticket in 2021 to try and address this issue, however its not been worked on. Can I request anyone interested in this:

• Subscribe to the Phabricator task so its made clear this is an issue many people would like to be fixed.
• Try citing Youtube videos in articles and give feedback in the Phab task if you notice anything I haven't mentioned.

Also just to say I've seen a couple of people say "Youtube is an unreliable source and shouldn't be used", I think this is a missunderstanding of what the platform is, its the channels that should be assessed for reliability rather than the publishing platform as a whole. E.g the BBC News channel is reliable (its listed under Perennialy reliable sources on en.wiki), where as My Toy Reviews or DailyWire or whatever are obviously not reliable.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 07:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

InsideSources

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

The article on Deval Patrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a Democrat, includes salacious information from insidesources.com. Other links to the site include an Author page for Paul Gosar. I can't find any indicia of reliability for this publication, and having Gosar as an author is quite the red flag for derogatory info on a BLP of a Democrat. A quick review suggests that it, and its three child publications, are partisan commentary masquerading as news (e.g. fawning praise of Vivek Ramaswamy, which is, to put it charitably, not echoed in reliable sources). There are 30-odd new links since I last checked, so it's likely that some editors at least think it's reliable. What do people here think? Guy (help! - typo?) 12:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The Insidesources about page looks like a crank site ("The media elite’s echo chamber ...") Copyright 2020. The "support page" doesn't work. No names of editors or anyone running this thing. This looks like an astroturf network of some sort. I see no reason to assume reliability of any of this - David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The majority of the content at these publications is opinion pieces by various writers in the nature of op-eds or syndicated opinion columns. Those certainly shouldn't be used as sources for anything other than the authors' opinions. The writer of the piece cited as a source in the Patrick article is Michael Graham (radio personality), a low rent Rush Limbaugh wannabe. I don't think it can be used in a BLP. Banks Irk (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

While you can't find it on their website, their LinkedIn page states that Graham is both the editor and publisher of these sites, which means it is a SPS as to his own articles/columns, and as such automatically disallowed in a BLP. Banks Irk (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Question

[46] Is this addition unreliable per WP:NOTSCANDAL? It is sourced to an interview from the 1990's with a Sikh separatist leader where he claims that the person in question helped escalate a separatist movement based in India because he wanted revenge for Pakistan's defeat in some war with India which is obvious gossip material. It is further being put on the lead as if its some key detail/summary of the body. Full discussion regarding the issue at Talk:Khalistan_movement#November Kiu99 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Additions are not unreliable, sources are. You might be thinking of wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Synagogue attack in Armenia and Azerbaijani coverage of it

This article about the only synagogue in Armenia was recently edited to include coverage of the recent attack by an unknown assailant. The newly-added paragraph claims that "The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia claimed responsibility". The 2 provided sources (1, 2) supporting this claim do not look convincing to me. Both sources are Israeli; however, they only reference Azerbaijani articles and videos/posts circulated by Azerbaijani officials. Although sources being Azerbaijani is not an argument against their reliability, the concern here is that the sources do not actually provide any evidence of ASALA having conducted the attack - they only quote Azerbaijani officials' statements and news articles, which themselves lack any sources.

Source 1 (I24 News TV)

... in both cases the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) group claimed responsibility for the attack on its Telegram channel in Armenian and English. On both occasions, videos of the arson were published first on this channel, along with “manifestos” stating the reasons for the attacks and declaring new threats.

[the linked article in the first paragraph] There have been conflicting reports over the group responsible for the attack, with Azerbaijani media pinning it on the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA)

Source 2 (Algemeiner.com)

The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) claimed responsibility for attacking the Mordechai Navi Synagogue, the only Jewish place of worship operating in the country, Azerbaijani media and other sources reported. Azerbaijani Ambassador to Germany Nasimi Aghayev was among those who shared footage of the synagogue attack on social media. [embedding of the ambassador's X post right after]

I could not find ASALA's "Telegram channel" where they "claim responsibility" according to Source 1. The only channel I could find only has 111 subscribers as of Dec 9 2023, and was created right after the attack, so I highly doubt it represents ASALA as a group. Given that no statement claiming responsibility for the attack can definitively be attributed to ASALA, no investigative authority has linked ASALA to the attack, and that authorities are conflicted about which group is responsible for the attack (according to source 1), I would like to undo the revision.

For context - ASALA was a militant organization that conducted attacks in European countries in the 1980s against Turkish entities to raise awareness about the Armenian genocide. The group was dissolved in late 1990s, with the last attack having occurred in 1997 (check out the linked article for more details). There is no reason to believe that ASALA would conduct a synagogue attack 26 years after its dissolution against a non-Turkish entity unless there is strong evidence linking the group to the attack. Azerbaijan and Armenia have fought several wars over the last decades, with the most significant escalation having occurred in 2020, so the tensions between the two countries are really high. Although I don't have enough evidence to claim that linking ASALA to the synagogue attack is a coordinated attempt by Azerbaijan to tarnish Armenia's international reputation, such things have happened in the past so I am suspicious of the true motives here.

Original discussion on the article's talk page Unotheo (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)