Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reliable sources

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Only in death (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 23 April 2024 (→Gamerant). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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


    Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

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

    Additional notes:

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

    RfC: Allkpop

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

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

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

    You should provide more context but here's all the previous discussions that are about allkpop: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
    It's also listed under WP:WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources#UR as being unreliable although that's just a Wikiproject. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Traumnovelle: Some articles like this are poor for using as a source. Although this site publishes rumours and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts, however, some information on this site may or may not be true and Allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of the claims. sjh (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the site itself doesn't consider itself reliable I fail to see how it can be considered reliable for Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Makes no warranty as to validity” is just a standard legalese disclaimer; websites of many RS have similar disclaimers. Judge reliability based on substance. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (Allkpop)

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

    @Davest3r08: That's fine if other reliable sources like this can be used in a BLP too. sjh (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I Agree with @Davest3r08Davest3r08 Slacker13 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 3: Super Unreliable. WikiProject Korea deems it unreliable and it is a celebrity gossip site. Definitely should not be used in BLPs, like ever. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 3 - generally unreliable:. Per various arguments provided above. Shadowwarrior8 Shadowwarrior8 21:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 3: generally unreliable. A good amount of their articles are sourced from unreliable Korean sites like Insight or Wikitree (relevant pages in Korean here and here respectively; though they're from the user-generated wiki NamuWiki, the articles are good for getting a feel on how the sites are viewed), and the other half is gossip pulled from biased, even less reliable K-netizen translation sites. Their third hottest article at the time of writing is this gossipy, substanceless mess. I'm having a hard time finding any coverage up to par with actual news outlets such as Korea Herald - just gossip, gossip, and more gossip. Wuju Daisuki (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Allkpop)

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

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

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

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

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

    Survey (Entertainment coverage of the New York Post)

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

    03:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

    • Option 2. I understand why the New York Post can be problematic, but film/music/television/etc reviews are fine. I guess we have to explicitly allow that carve out so overzealous editors don't go around removing them. Jessintime (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. Frankly I don't see the reason why reviews from well known film critics (like the Kyle Smith (critic) listed above) or interviews that asks the right questions cannot be used as a primary source just because they are posted onto an unreliable platform. S5A-0043Talk 11:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. I'm the person who started the Decider question, as pointed out by the discussion below. Most of the entertainment articles from the sub-publications seem to be from established journalists so I do not have a problem with those, but if contentious claims are made, maybe using that source is not the best. It's kind of like the Screen Rant situation. Spinixster (chat!) 13:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC. Because the general matter is already under discussion in the unclosed previous post, because a pro-censorship result on this guideline page is not policy and cannot override WP:NOTCENSORED, because it's not clear what's "entertainment" (to me sports is entertainment), because context matters; because blanket bans bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 or 2 Applies to Decider only. CapnZapp (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 They may not be reliable for facts but reviews are opinions. It's a case-by-case basis as to whether the review deserves inclusion such as the author and their credentials. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 5: No formal determination is necessary. Sometimes the paper has smart stuff in it, and sometimes it has dumb stuff in it. If people are incapable of understanding this, they shouldn't be writing encyclopedia articles. Moreover, there's no amount of bureaucratic source classification that's going to make them capable of doing so. jp×g🗯️ 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2: Only for entertainment proposes. Nothing more. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 I'd continue to steer far away from the Post for general news, especially politics and CTOPs; however, for entertainment news/reviews, the points raised by Jessintime and Traumnovelle stand. The Kip 06:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 (entertainment to be construed broadly and include sport and celebrity) their political issues are well known, but the points above, inclusion with attribution may be valid in cases where they aren’t highly controversial and the reviewer is acceptable. FortunateSons (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 I am not a fan of carveouts like this for sources that we already consider generally unreliable. The editorial standards for entertainment news are highly unlikely to be better than for any other topic, so what we're really saying here is that it matters less for the topic of entertainment than for other topics, and I don't really buy that. I also notice a lot of the "option 2" votes above really seem to be about reviews specifically, which are already allowed (with attribution) because they're opinion and not factual. I'd therefore say most of the option two arguments here fall under the "generally" in "Generally unreliable".----Licks-rocks (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 - As per others, and to allow us to exercise judgement from time to time while avoiding automated or semi-automated censorship.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 - Reviews are inherently opinions even if they can be considered expert opinion. I don't see any reason why we would avoid using the NYP reviews but might use reviews from many other sources. For example, why refuse a NYP movie review but accept one from say a Huston news paper? BTW, this is also one of the flaws with our RSP blanket RfCs. They are often way too broad when we should be looking at claims on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. Of course exceptions can exist, just like for any unreliable source, but it's necessary to actually present and articulate those exceptions on a case-by-case basis; the default is unreliable. WP:RSOPINION content still requires some degree of reliability - we need to be confident that the source will not publish opinions that make egregiously incorrect statements, that they at least tend towards hiring people who know what they're talking about, and so on. In-text attribution alone is not a substitute for this reliability. And the Post doesn't reach that threshold - publication there, whether as a review or an opinion or whatever, confers no reliability. It can still be cited occasionally, but only in the same way that Reddit posts or YouTube videos or blogs or personal websites can be cited - publication there means nothing because they lack rigorous editorial controls and the reputation that would give their masthead meaning. And like those, that means the default can only be "unreliable." --Aquillion (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think "entertainment" is too broad a category. There's a massive difference between "review of a film/TV show" and "tabloid coverage of celebrities", both of which could fall under "entertainment". I wouldn't be particularly bothered if the NYPost's reviews were found to be usable, but I don't think this RfC should be taken as an endorsement of using tabloid gossip sources about celebrities. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 - The default is unreliable unless there is some reason to think otherwise. Everyone has an opinion. I certainly have never heard of the NYP as a goto source for entertainment (other than their often humorous views on politics and economics). O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think this RfC as worded is maybe unnecessary. It seems clear the community thinks GUNREL sources like NYPost can still be usable (depending on context) for something like film/music reviews, but probably we should've already known that. I think a more useful consensus to come to for the actual issue at hand would've been something like "it is not appropriate for David Gerard to blanket delete all uses of NYPost without regard to the context, and he should stop". Endwise (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 Journalism is, by its nature, not highly reliable and so each case needs to be judged on its merits. Looking at a sample used in the article Entertainment Weekly, I'm not seeing any particular cause for concern. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 per Chetsford and Aquillion, basically. Entertainment news coverage must be evaluated by our standards for factual reporting, including WP:BLP, and there, the Post doesn't really have a leg to stand on. For reviews, as opposed to news, the default presumption should be that they are simply unnecessary. The case-by-case burden is on those who wish to include them. WP:RSOPINION content still requires some degree of reliability - we need to be confident that the source will not publish opinions that make egregiously incorrect statements, that they at least tend towards hiring people who know what they're talking about, and so on, as Aquillion argues. In broad strokes, opinions published in venues whose factual reporting is generally unreliable aren't opinions that we need to cover. If I'm a subject-matter expert in one area, my personal blog might be an acceptable source for exceedingly uncontroversial statements in that area, but there would still be no reason to cite my blog post reviewing a movie I happened to see. My blog would be "generally unreliable" outside very narrow limits; using it as a source for unrelated opinions would be unencyclopedic. XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 for reviews, no change for "entertainment news", Page Six or Decider. When deciding whether to include a review, the core question is whether the reviewer is someone who's opinion carries weight. If a noteworthy critic like Richard Roeper took a contract writing film reviews published in the NY Post, the reliability and importance of his review isn't altered by the venue it is posted in. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 or Option 2, since no examples of falsehoods have been provided by the editors who voted for 3/4, and due to the presence of well-known critics, per u:S5A-0043. Alaexis¿question? 22:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. Its reviews are fine, and they tend to carry some weight among critics (particularly so for the New York City musical/theatre arts scene). Additional considerations apply because there are some broader problems when using for contentious information on BLPs, but I think that the culture and entertainment reviews are fine. The notion that, as one editor puts above the New York Post must not be used for any statement concerning living persons is a bit overkill when applied to mundane information (who the lead actors are in a Broadway play, etc.), and I would stress that such language is a gross oversimplification of the source's utility in this scope. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC
    • Option 3 I would say to generally just avoid unreliable sources for everything, including reviews. It's not worth the time and effort to look at every article and decide whether it is acceptable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)*[reply]
    • Option 2, Most sources need additional considerations. The sources/articles should be looked at upon their own merits. Grahaml35 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 or 2 for Decider. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional Option 2, otherwise Option 3 - I'm basically going to copy what I wrote when a similar thread came up about NYPost's sports coverage last April: Support a carve-out for entertainment, which is sufficiently tame/reliable from what I've seen. Two exceptions which would need to be included in the RSP entry for me to support option 2: (1) nothing from the prurient/scandalous side of the Post (e.g. objectifying female actors), and (2) nothing with any overlap with politics (diversity/representation in Hollywood, the Times Up movement, reviews of movies that deal with political issues, etc.). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 - If this was about the NY Post sports section it should be option 1. But while there are tabloid elements to the Post's entertainment section, there is no evidence that it is generally unreliable. There is certainly no reason a review in the Post should be considered unreliable. Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 for Decider per RunningTiger123. Some of its interviews or reviews are usable, but it's not the highest-quality source so avoidance of highly sensitive or exceptional BLP claims would be wise. — Bilorv (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Entertainment coverage of the New York Post)

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

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

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

    Checking the page, it seems like the only (if not primary writer) right now is Nicholas Hautman, and per his about page, He joined the New York Post in 2021 after nearly six years at Us Weekly, where he started his career. He graduated from Hofstra University on Long Island in 2016 with a bachelor's degree in journalism. Spinixster (chat!) 01:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is a reasonable suggestion, since Page Six is already listed as a sub-publication of the New York Post at WP:PAGESIX. I've added Page Six to the RfC. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 03:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Do not pre-empt any conclusions Please don't act as if your preference has already achieved consensus, User:David Gerard, as you did here. Your edit summary NYP is generally unreliable, prima facie WP:UNDUE is inaccurate. The current (pre-discussion) consensus is that NYP is generally unreliable "for factual reporting especially with regard to politics", not that it is generally unreliable in every aspect. CapnZapp (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "generally" means "generally", not "not generally" - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No it does not. Generally means generally only when there are no qualifiers. Otherwise those be pointless to add. Do not ignore the qualifiers. This entire RfC relies on the fact that you are wrong. CapnZapp (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with some users, David Gerard. You have been removing reviews on film article that come from the New York Post without any consideration of the consequences behind that and you did so by your own biased views of the reliability of the sourcing of New York Post. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His editing history is especially egregious since he participated in this very discussion and still went ahead and made his edits, as if this wasn't still an open RfC that could possibly rule against his wishes. If and when it does, I hope and trust he will self-revert all his premature edits. CapnZapp (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand David Gerard's point of view based on the phrasing of the 2020 RfC's closing summary. For example, the sentence "Gambling is generally a poor financial decision, especially when the gambler is in debt" states two things: that gambling is generally a poor financial decision, and that gambling is generally an even worse financial decision for gamblers who are in debt. Likewise, "Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics" means that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, and that it is generally unreliable to an even greater extent for political reporting. This RfC seeks to clarify whether the New York Post's entertainment coverage should be considered differently. — Newslinger talk 21:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "generally unreliable for factual reporting" means just that. It does not mean "generally unreliable" full stop. Otherwise those three words "for factual reporting" would not have been added. There is no uncertainty about what the earlier RfC meant. It specifically spelled out "factual reporting" meaning that the "generally unreliable" rating only applies to that. Other stuff - like entertainment - was specifically excluded from the decision. David Gerard didn't read it that way but that doesn't mean his reading is valid. Just to be crystal clear: This RfC does not seek to "clarify" this as if the earlier RfC was unclear. It can, however, seek clarification since the earlier RfC did not apply to entertainment articles. I trust and hope you and I agree on this, Newslinger. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Factual reporting does not exclude entertainment reporting. For example, Decider exclusively focuses on entertainment reporting, yet still publishes plenty of non-review articles that only make factual claims. The New York Post's and Decider's reviews and recommendations also contain factual claims, as most reviews do. The 2020 RfC's closing summary said that the New York Post is "Generally unreliable for factual reporting", and it did not say that the New York Post was any more reliable for entertainment reporting than it was for most topics, so the 2020 RfC was clear that the New York Post was considered generally unreliable for entertainment reporting as well. The current RfC offers editors an opportunity to re-evaluate the reliability of the New York Post's entertainment coverage. — Newslinger talk 13:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You yourself started this RfC quoting the current status quo: "Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics". This can only be read as the RfC taking a position on "factual reporting". Obviously facts can and will appear in reviews, but you didn't start this RfC to discuss the fringe cases when an editor cites a NYP review to verify a factual claim, you presumably started this RfC to see whether the community wants to discourage editors from using NYP reviews in entertainment articles. The context right here is David Gerard trying to justify his jumping the gun by saying that the earlier RfC does mean this already, but we should not express any understanding for that POV - we are specifically talking about it here and now, so taking action before allowing this discussion to conclude is obviously premature. CapnZapp (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you mean the complete opposite, that NYP was previously considered generally unreliable overall but you want to see whether the community can exclude entertainment from that assessment, his actions remain just as premature - trying to get his edits in before this RfC changes the status quo is frowned upon, to say the least. (If this is your stance, our RS/P summary should have read "generally unreliable" full stop with no qualifiers) CapnZapp (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This User:David Gerard is just wasting a lot of people's time here on Wikipedia with his BS editing based on his own personal views; he tags pages for speedy deletion when there is zero reason to do so, removes content out of the blue, engages in edit wars; will someone block him or should we keep wasting time to keep this bully at bay? Itemirus (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked this editor for personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. I have concerns about the New York Post's reliability, especially in political and controversial topics. However, when it comes to entertainment reviews, such as film, music, and television, these pieces often represent subjective opinions and are less likely to impact BLP integrity compared to factual reporting. Reviews, being inherently opinion-based, should be judged on the merit of the individual piece and its author rather than the general reputation of the publication. This approach allows for a nuanced inclusion of potentially valuable cultural perspectives. FailedMusician (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Middle East Monitor

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    Al-Alawi, having never existed, also never had a brother.
    Further, regardless of what it puts in its own voice and what it attributes, I find it very concerning for a source to be pushing fringe conspiracy theories without any level of scepticism, and for it to fail to correct that error when it is raised with them - to me, those are indications that the source is generally unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it attributes that too. You're quoting out of context. What it says about the body is Al-Alawi’s body was discovered in the Red Sea city of Hurghada, with fractures and bruises found on the body. The cause of death was due to a cerebral hemorrhage as a result of a severe brain injury. The report, citing a source, also disclosed that the journalist had been beaten by a group of people. That is, once again, citing the report. And there is no error in what they report, they are saying that so and so reported such and such. And that is true. They also say that so and so say it is Russian propaganda. That is also true. Your claim that they are "pushing fringe conspiracy theories" is completely unsubstantiated, they are relaying what was reported and attributing it to who reported it, and also attributing who says it is not true. It has a link to the interview, making that attributed as well. You are misrepresenting what they are reporting. nableezy - 22:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is attributing to the report that "the journalist" had been beaten by a group of people. It's not attributing the claim that he died.
    Further, the interview is linked, but MEMO is saying in its own voice that the interview was given by Al-Alawi's brother - the brother who doesn't exist.
    Regardless, is it not concerning that MEMO spends so little time verifying its stories that it is literally pushing Russian conspiracy theories, stories that it refuses to retract? This is not the behavior of a reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very clearly saying all this is from the report. You can tell that by the word "also". What is there to retract? That El Mostaqbal reported this? They did. nableezy - 22:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading differs - the "also" refers to their earlier explicit mention of the report. And what there is to retract is the entire story; they are presenting - and thus promoting - Russian conspiracy theories as credible, saying things such as the report disclosed rather then the report alleges. The fact that they attribute parts (but not all - clearly you at least agree that the story presents both Al-Alawi and his brother as real people) doesn't change that. BilledMammal (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The story they are "presenting" is that El Mostaqbal reported this. That remains true. At most it is missing a "purported" in front of brother when linking to the interview. They very clearly are reporting who said what, and who said its not true. They even include the claim that it is Russian propaganda. There isnt any part of what they are actually reporting that is an issue. nableezy - 23:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That really isn’t how an average person would read the article, and even if it was, their statement and lack of retraction is nevertheless a reason not to use them in any area with controversy. FortunateSons (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Im aware of your feelings on sources you dislike, along with your efforts to remove them from certain topics, you dont need to repeat them multiple times in the same section. There isnt anything in this to retract, what they reported is accurate, and I see no reason why this source is not perfectly usable. If you feel they should issue a correction there is a link at the bottom of the story for you to contact them. nableezy - 23:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even you agree they present the brothers as real people; don’t you think they need to retract that?
    And the NYT has already contacted them; their response was concerning, as I quoted above. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn’t appear to be true at all. nableezy - 13:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which aspect? BilledMammal (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That it is their response and not some independent reporter's who writes for a different site. nableezy - 13:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we disagree on that I hope you can see their failure to retract this story as concerning. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is certainly different from using “alleged” at the very least, if they are using such a source. Additionally, the conduct described above is certainly still concerning. FortunateSons (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Selfstudier that this discussion seems a misuse of the noticeboard. It is not relevant to some article and the publication isn't in RSP. But looking at the dicussion the thought occurred to me, I bet it has to do with NGO Monitor, and sure enough we have [7]. Why am I not surprised. NadVolum (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not misuse of this Noticeboard to discuss whether a widely used source that we now discover has a penchant for pushing Russian disinformation and conspiracy theories is reliable.
    As far as I know, this has no relation to NGO monitor. BilledMammal (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A "penchant" denotes a widespread tendency, "pushing" denotes a conscious decision to spread something, again with the strong implication of repetition. Here we have a single report, which attributes the story to somebody else and states that it has been denied.
    I agree that, if MEM regularly published articles sourced to Russian propaganda, or if they had published this story as fact and repeatedly asserted its truth we would have to look at whether it was reliable for news relating to the Russia/Ukraine conflict. But that is not what this is about, is it? --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I say a penchant because of Aris’ response when challenged. The issue appears systemic.
    Further, while some is attributed, not all is, despite the entire story being disinformation. ::::But that is not what this is about, is it? This is about the reliability of the source, nothing else? BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bah, one not even much of an incident, and it is systemic? Then every newsorg is unreliable by that standard. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s systemic because MEMO told the NYT "we don’t make any attempt to verify stories before publishing them". BilledMammal (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can’t find anything by Ben Aris on MEMO. I can’t find he has any position there either. His Twitter profile doesn’t mention MEMO, so I don’t know what his unwilling to verify things has to do with MEMO. It also isn’t a normal thing to use quote marks for things nobody ever said. nableezy - 10:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears MEMO doesn’t publicly list the author of their articles. And I was paraphrasing - or do you think I was doing so inaccurately? BilledMammal (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What we can say for certain is that NYT is attributing the unsubstantiated claim to Ben Aris (whose name doesn't appear anywhere on MEMO's website). M.Bitton (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn’t even say he writes for MEMO and the sentence structure is he referenced the MEMO article, and from his twitter he does. But he writes for BNE Intellinews. Paraphrases don’t use quotes. If anything that would be a sign of unreliability and disinformation. I see no evidence whatsoever that he writes for MEMO, much less represents them and their editorial policies. nableezy - 13:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading differs - and clearly so do others here. BilledMammal (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What others? Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is one immediately above my reply? BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide any evidence that he writes for MEMO or has any position there. A listing of his articles at MuckRack shows nothing at all. He is also not listed anywhere on MEMO's list of editors and regular contributors. Please provide any evidence at all for the claim that MEMO said anything like what you say they said. nableezy - 13:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the invitation to provide any evidence at all for the claims made has been ignored, I’ll assume that means the claim itself has been dropped. nableezy - 17:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At least they attributed the claims, unlike the New York Times (enjoy reading this discussion about the self-declared beacon of journalistic integrity). M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you elaborate on where the linked thread discussed attribution? The only comments I can find when searching by term are my own. FortunateSons (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The linked thread is about a fabricated story by NYT (it goes without saying that attribution is way above those who sink that low). M.Bitton (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware, I participated in that thread. However, the claims about the article in the NYT are both highly disputed and unrelated to the issue of attribution. As the New York Times generally enjoys a high reliability and the linked discussion did not come to a different conclusion, I am confused about the purpose of your comment. Could you elaborate? FortunateSons (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple, if the NYT can screw up, so can MEMO and the NYT screwup is rather more severe than anything MEMO is allegedly guilty of. All this is just trying to make a mountain of a very small molehill. Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Generally reliable. It is obviously financed by Qatar, but so is every other self-proclaimed independent media state-financed, including the BBC, which has been publishing extremely misleading coverage of the war. All medias have biases, but that doesn't necessarily affect general reliability, unless it has been consistently false or misleading; which applies more to the New York Times than Middle East Monitor, as far as I have seen. Nothing justifies downgrading the reliability of this source so far. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Makeandtoss
    It is laughable to compare the amount of control that the British government exerts on the BBC to the amount of Control that Qatari government exerts over Al Jazeerah. The UK is a democratic country committed to the freedom of speech and of the Press. Qatar is neither of these. Vegan416 (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vegan416: With control or without alleged government control; that doesn't change the fact that editors can be biased and unreliable. Democracies have been implicated in serious human rights violations, claiming that they are immune to it, is egregiously of touch with reality. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is immune from committing human rights violations, and nobody claims to be immune to that. But still non-democratic states are much more likely to commit them (all else being equal) than democratic states. And in particular in this regard of the freedom of press I repeat that it is laughable to claim that there is no difference in the level of control the governments have on state-owned (or even private) media companies, between democratic and non-democratic states. And it is ridiculous to suggest that they should be assigned the same level of reliability. Vegan416 (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliability is not based on government type, but editorial controls and track record on content. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's actually ridiculous is to suggest that the reliability of a source depends on factors external to the quality of its reporting, and that all western sources monopolize the truth. This western-centrism is the root of systematic bias on Wikipedia. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Makeandtoss @Iskandar323
    The reliability of a source depends on many things, among them editorial controls and track record on content. And editorial controls are heavily influenced by the government type. It is much more likely that the editorial controls in a non-democratic state will be in the hand of the government. Especially is state controlled/financed media. So the default assumptions in each case are different. At the very least we can say that the onus of proof that the editorial controls are not in the hand of the government is much higher in the case of non-democratic state media. Vegan416 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think this hasn't been discussed before in the context of AJ? No one is going to change the assessment of the reliability of AJ based on your personal opinions and suppositions about its editorial procedures. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would ask people not to !vote here, this is not an RfC, and if it were it would be a bad one as it is not formulated in anything approaching a neutral way. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    +1 Selfstudier (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Having a quick look, there are also issues on their coverage of the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion; they haven't corrected their articles from immediately after the explosion that blamed Israel without equivocation, and even months later they continued to repeat those claims such as in this article where they say Hundreds killed in Israeli attack on Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza. BilledMammal (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Your position appears to be if a source doesn’t repeat some dominant POV of western sources that means it is unreliable. But that isn’t what that means, and there remains a dispute about the responsibility for that explosion, and a source taking a differing view than say the NYTimes doesn’t make that source unreliable. nableezy - 06:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably BilledMammal's position here is simply that Middle East Monitor is claiming as fact something that is either untrue or unproven.
    Also, @BilledMammal, the source you've provided was not published "months later" after the attack.
    - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you're right - I misread the date. Published a month and a half later. BilledMammal (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m saying a source that continues to unequivocally blame Israel despite most evidence suggesting PIJ is to blame is probably unreliable, and is definitely highly biased. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some evidence advanced by allies of Israel suggests that, other evidence, such as the analysis by Forensic Analysis, suggests otherwise. You are saying that if one does not take the conclusion of Israel that it is unreliable. And last I checked, that is not what reliability means here. nableezy - 11:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond that, your retelling of this source is itself unreliable, the only place it includes that line is the title of a cartoon in the caption. Sheesh. nableezy - 11:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "You are saying that if one does not take the conclusion of Israel that it is unreliable." Obviously this is not what BilledMammal is saying.
    However, regarding "your retelling of this source is itself unreliable, the only place it includes that line is the title of a cartoon in the caption", this is concerning actually. BilledMammal has seemingly misrepresented the source by claiming that "they say 'Hundreds killed in Israeli attack on Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza'", despite that fact that this "claim" only appears as the caption of a cartoon at the bottom of the article.
    - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know, we treat captions the same way as we treat the rest of the article - there is no WP:HEADLINES for captions. If I am wrong, please correct me. BilledMammal (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Really?
    From WP:Headlines: "Headlines [...] may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles."
    You don't think that applies to captions? Especially a caption on a cartoon...
    - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the concern is that headlines are often clickbait created by individuals other than the journalist or researcher, while captions aren't because if a reader is seeing the caption they have already been convinced to click.
    However, if I'm wrong and that does apply to captions we should update WP:HEADLINES to explicitly include captions, as I suspect I'm not the only editor who believes that policy doesn't apply to them. BilledMammal (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect most editors don't think about that at all. Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given how many editors aren't even aware of WP:HEADLINES you are probably right, but I still think that if I am wrong and it does apply to captions we should clarify that policy. BilledMammal (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that is indeed the conclusion BilledMammal is reaching. That if one does not favor the conclusions of Israel’s allies it is unreliable and or biased. nableezy - 12:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And if I'm reading it right, that cartoons are part of the moderated journalistic content of a newspaper. NadVolum (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What you call unusual or fringe views happens to be those that articulate the views, news and facts of a two-sided conflict, as those are perceived by one half, the defeated or crushed party. NPOV demands extreme care to maintain balanced narratives, and drying up access to the few newspapers that take on the burden of expressing the generally silenced perspectives of one party only consolidates the WP:Systemic bias we have to cope with in this area.
    There are many cogent reasons why we should retain our use, always careful, of less 'mainstream' sources. The most important is the systemic bias of our default newspaper RS, New York Times, the Washington Post, The Times of Israel, the Jerusalem Post, Ynet and even Haaretz (the Guardian gives more coverage but not much) is known to all, and was underlined by a remark made in the NYTs the other day. The Israeli sources we accept are all now extremely pro-war and partisan, and much of their reliable content exemplifies a battle to show whose coverage is more patriotic, something that in turn feeds into the copy and paste Western newspapers. Chipping away, as has been done recently at the putative unreliableness or 'fringeness', even of the handful of newspapers that give voice to a Palestinian/Arab perspective, is nothing more than indicative of a tendency to spin reportage according to the dominant perspective of one of the contendents.

    A study by the University of Arizona’s Maha Nassar found that of the opinion articles about Palestinians published in The New York Times and The Washington Post between 2000 and 2009, Palestinians themselves wrote roughly 1 percent. Peter Beinart, The Great Rupture in American Jewish Life,' The New York Times 22 March 2024

    I.e., NYTs practice (and they are the most 'liberal' of the venues cited) is to delegate 99% of opinion articles on Palestinians to non-Palestinians (Americans, American Jews, or Israeli Jews normally). Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, the opinion is of Haaretz, not the "lobby group".
    Second, we aren't here to right great wrongs; we don't use unreliable sources because no reliable sources contain the perspectives we believe should be included.
    Third, your comment about the percentage of opinion articles seems irrelevant. How many opinion articles in the NYT about Russia are by Russians? How about Turkey? China? Israel? I suspect Palestine isn't a significant outlier among non-anglophone states of global interest.
    Finally, regardless of reliability, I think it is clear that this is a biased source that should only be used with attribution, particularly now that FortunateSons has presented that Times article. BilledMammal (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, it was telegraph and Haaretz, not Times :) FortunateSons (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The opinion I referred to is conspiracy theories, the holding views you dislike is referring to the Telegraph article. Holding views that agree with the Brotherhood or Hamas for that matter has nothing to do with reliability. You may want this to be a Zionist project where only sources that toe a certain line are allowed, but it is not and it has nothing to do with reliability. Not liking the views of a source is not and has never been a factor for a sources reliability. There is nothing disqualifying about holding views that promote a supposed pro-Brotherhood or pro-Hamas view of the region. Would holding that the Palestinian refugees have a right of return be disqualifying? Because that’s a pro-Hamas viewpoint of the region. You may keep trying to change the purpose of this board to be that of instituting a political test on sources, but I’ll keep calling it what it is. nableezy - 16:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let’s WP:AssumeGoodFaith and beWP:CIVIL here. FortunateSons (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When people attempt to rule out sources because of the views they hold they are misusing this board and attempting to institute a political test of their liking to sources. Again, holding pro-Hamas views has nothing to do with reliability, nor does holding pro-Israel views. You are the one making this about the views they hold. Is it a sign of unreliability to hold views associated with a state credibly accused of an ongoing genocide? Should all news sources that have been identified as pro-Israel be censored because of those views? Or do you only apply this test to the views you don’t like? nableezy - 16:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue isn’t the moral position of the source, its opinions are just clearly perceived as fringe by the sources cited by me. While there is some systemic bias, being in favour of terrorist groups is going to very likely put you in fringe territory regardless of which terror group it is: the same would have probably applied to a pro-Rote Armee Fraktion source had Wikipedia existed back then. If said source was also distributing conspiracy content enough to be noticed by MSM for it, even worse. FortunateSons (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fringe doesn’t mean what you think it means. Holding pro brotherhood or pro Hamas positions isn’t fringe. nableezy - 17:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think supporting terrorist groups and spreading conspiracy theories while not fact-checking or retracting stories is a factor when it comes to assessing the reliability of a source. It’s ok if you disagree FortunateSons (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I have ur permission to disagree as well? Thanks in advance. Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, you did ask so nicely FortunateSons (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of that is true, please don’t make bogus assertions and expect people to pretend like they are true. nableezy - 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They were referred to as all 3 by RS, and the story is still up FortunateSons (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, holding pro-Hamas viewpoints is not "supporting Hamas", and the Community Security Trust isn’t a reliable source, sorry. Again, holding views you don’t like is not something that matters here. Holding views that one right wing source calls pro-Hamas has nothing to do with reliability. It’s a funny thing that happens here, people forget we are supposed to include all significant views published by reliable sources but then try to define what is reliable based on the views sources hold so as to suppress those significant views they dislike. But bias, supposed or otherwise, has nothing to do with reliability. So despite the effort to create a list of beliefs one must not hold to be cited our policies remain diametrically opposed to such efforts. nableezy - 18:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me, publicising media while being pro-Hamas and having a mission statement which includes The use or misuse of information is central to the conflict in the Middle East. There has been a growing need for supporters of, in particular, the Palestinian cause, to master the art of information gathering, analysis and dissemination. This requires well organised, focused and targeted operations. Such initiatives are virtually non-existent in the West today. The Middle East Monitor (MEMO) was established to fill this gap. and As such, we regularly interface with politicians, editors, lobby groups and various other stakeholders to facilitate a better understanding and appreciation of the Palestine issue. is totally and meaningfully different from “supporting Hamas”.
    The CSR wasn’t discussed as an RS (though I would be tempted to say they are generally analogous to the ADL). Additionally, we do exclude fringe views already, and we don’t need a pro-Hamas viewpoint for the sake of [[WP:FALSEBALANCE], there are decent pro-Palestinian sources even before the war and particularly now. FortunateSons (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing remotely fringe about MEMO or its views, and therefore, nothing to exclude. Frankly, this joke is now officially a time sink that is wasting our resources without a snowball's chance in hell of achieving anything. M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that a pro-Israel viewpoint should be included but we should be excluding sources for having similar views to Hamas, besides being a basic association fallacy, is one that is not in keeping with our core policies. If you want a website in which only views that you like are allowed you can go start your own, cus this one ain’t it. nableezy - 19:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it helps, I believe that we also should exclude any news source with the same reliability issues that’s pro Ku-Klux-Klan, pro Jewish Defense League, or probably pro Kach (political party). We don’t have to WP:FALSEBALANCE our way into pro-terrorism viewpoints. There are good and diligent sources that express pro-Palestine views and those ought to be included even where I disagree with them, Memo just isn’t one of them. The inclusion of RS and the exclusion of fringe and unreliable sources is an important part of Wikipedia. FortunateSons (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But not pro state credibly accused of genocide I guess. And again, there is zero evidence of pro-terrorism, repeatedly making false statements isn’t the best look. nableezy - 20:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me, they are not pro-terrorism, just pro-terrorist-group. FortunateSons (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes the others (like NYT) pro-Genocide (when committed by a friend). M.Bitton (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That also is not true. What your one right wing source says it has pro Brotherhood and pro Hamas views of the region. Which could be in favor of anything from lifting the siege on Gaza to supporting the rights of Palestinian refugees to agreeing that Hamas has a legitimate right to resist foreign occupation and racist domination. None of that has anything to do with anything, and your attempt to redefine RS to exclude views you dislike is not one that has any policy backing. Nor even much support on this board. nableezy - 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you're confusing bias with reliability. The anti-Palestinian bias of the New York Times doesn't prevent the NYT from being treated as RS. M.Bitton (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and there are significantly biased (not:fringe) sources that are also reliable, and this isn’t one of them. Nevertheless, I agree with your last comment that this discussion is unlikely to produce results, we will just have to wait for when this comes up again. FortunateSons (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been told this before, but I'll repeat it here: 1) Fringe doesn't mean what you think it means. 2) There is nothing remotely fringe about either MEMO or its views. M.Bitton (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who receives what donations is always depended on a variety of circumstances and is unrelated to reliability in this context.
    I too would prefer if there were more and better mainstream reliable sources on the pro-Palestinian side then there currently are, but using an unreliable and fringe source is not the solution to the western systemic bias, it’s the long term creation of reasonable and reliable sources on both sides, something that I (and probably you) don’t have the ability to do. As said above, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not the solution to a geopolitical and sociological issue. FortunateSons (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look we have here this long thread and have proved what exactly? Not a whole lot, right? Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, both 'sides' provided good arguments for the inevitable RfC, otherwise, who knows. Maybe someone else will find something additional to contribute. FortunateSons (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two editors fomenting a storm in a teacup does not a case for an RFC make. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there are at least 5 participants, and considering the conduct and use of the source, I think it’s quite likely that it will be an RfC at some point. FortunateSons (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, perhaps when there is an actual live dispute over the use of the source on Wikipedia, that could be considered. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, something that I would consider probable FortunateSons (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well if the great bastion of race-baiting that is the Telegraph has made some aspersions about people with foreign sounding names, I'm sure we're good as gold to take the info as writ. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might want to take a look at the author of that piece. Selfstudier (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If a news outlet is routinely posting disproven information, incorrect information, or misinformation, it probably isn't a reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 17:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Really, never knew that. Are you saying that applies to MEM0? Another evidence free accusation? Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but that isn’t the case here at all so I don’t see the relevance to that general statement. nableezy - 18:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No case has been established. I've never paid much attention to MEM and I don't think I have ever cited it. However, to eliminate a source requires much better evidence than I see here. Once arguments that really amount to "I don't like its politics" are removed, there is practically nothing left. Overall this is an unusually weak case. Zerotalk 01:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see MEMO as a non-reliable source that has no editorial standards and exists mainly to amplify a particular political position. I haven’t seen incidents of it actually promoting falsehoods apart from the one mentioned by the OP. But I believe the CST is a very reliable source (not a lobbying organisation, and far more reliable than the ADL, who are currently being discussed elsewhere on this page, so if they say MEMO promotes conspiracy theories I take that seriously. I don’t think, contrary to some comments here, that we should relax our standards in order to accommodate more that give voice to a Palestinian/Arab perspective: there are plenty of far stronger sources that do (Al-Jazeera, +972, Al-Monitor, The New Arab, the Independent, the Guardian…). I also object to the ad hominem attacks and assumptions of bad faith that have been a feature of this discussion. In a thread above, I am accused of not considering Norman Finkelstein reliable because I want to “hide the truth”; in this thread a second person agreeing that this source is unreliable is described as acting as a coordinated “chorus”; and the accusation has been made that this is somehow instigated to defend NGO Monitor. (The fact that I’ve defended Al-Jazeera and 972 and opposed NGO Monitor as reliable sources doesn’t seem to stop such allegations.) Instead of these allegations against editors, defenders of this source would be better off giving examples of use by reliable sources or other actual reasons to trust it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's all very well, where though is the actual evidence of unreliability? It wasn't CST saying that they promote conspiracy theories, that was Haaretz (Anshel Pfeffer) saying that - "The Community Security Trust, the main Jewish organization monitoring all forms of racism, highlighted on its website that Corbyn is also scheduled to appear soon at a conference of the conspiracy-theory peddling anti-Israel organization Middle East Monitor, along with the anti-Semitic and Holocaust denier cartoonist Carlos Latuff." What are these conspiracy theories?
      So no, the burden remains with those accusing the source of unreliability to demonstrate that, not just allege it. Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, use by others. How about (Wikipedia Library links): Insight Turkey ([8]), Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses ([9]), International Crisis Group ([10], [11]), Journal of Palestine Studies ([12]), Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ([13]), Arab Studies Quarterly ([14]), and that's just when I got bored going through the JSTOR results. That enough evidence to go against your completely evidence-free opinion here? nableezy - 16:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Nableezy. That kind of evidence posted early on would have been more useful than (evidence-free) allegations that editors were here to hide the truth. Re CST, they did indeed say MEMO promotes conspiract theories, albeit a while ago:

      Middle East Monitor (MEMO) is a pro-Palestinian lobbying group which generally supports Islamist positions within Palestinian politics. We have had cause to write about MEMO on this blog before, because they commonly promote conspiracy theories about politicians in Western nations being beholden to Jewish or Zionist political manipulation and financial inducements, along with other classical antisemitic canards and tropes.[15]

      And:

      MEMO has featured repeatedly on the CST Blog for peddling conspiracy theories and myths about Jews, Zionists, money and power. This has included questioning the suitability of Matthew Gould for the post of UK Ambassador to Israel simply because he is Jewish. MEMO also continued to spread the untrue story that the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ film was a Zionist plot to stir up hatred of Muslims, several days after it had been widely established that the film was made by Egyptian Christians. One MEMO article, titled 'How money from pro-Israel donors controls Westminster', was even praised by American neo-Nazi David Duke. In 2009, when Channel 4's Dispatches aired a programme about pro-Israel lobby groups, MEMO illustrated their article about the programme with this image that implies Jewish or Israeli financial influence over the UK Parliament. A reverse Google images search suggests that this image originated on the thoroughly antisemitic Radio Islam website.[16]

      And: There is much else that is problematic in MEMO's report, not least the repeated Zionist conspiracy-mongering that is becoming their stock-in-trade. But this example illustrates a lesson they ought to heed: if you make things up as you go along, sooner or later people will stop believing what you say.[17] In the first cite above, CST actually goes further, saying that MEMO included a quote from Ariel Sharon that they say has been thoroughly debunked since it first appeared in 2001 in a press release from the pro-Hamas Islamic Association for Palestine. IAP's claimed source for the quote, the Israeli radio station Kol Yisrael, had never broadcast it, and their political correspondent confirmed that Sharon never said it. No other source has ever emerged to confirm IAP's claim.[18] Finally, in other pieces, CST accuse MEMO of multiple inaccuracies in relation to Raed Saleh.[19][20] BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And is the CST material used by others? Those are CST blogposts you are citing there.Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Are these particular CST pieces cited by others? Well, we got to them because Ha'aretz cited them so yes. If you want a general discussion about the reliability of CST, probably better to open a new thread. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Blogposts are not RS, so no need. Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not quite right. See below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Assessment of use by others

    I've had a moment to look at reputation and use by others a little more systematically, by going through mentions in news articles via Google news and factcheck sites via Poynter Institute. Here's what I found:

    • Favourable:
      • DW has used it as a reliable source on the Palestinian Authority in 2016, calling it a "not-for-profit policy research institute".[21] (They also called it a "pro-Muslim Brotherhood website" the same year.[22])
      • The Misbar fact check website uses MEMO as a reliable source in factchecking a fake claim on social media.[23]
      • Snopes lists MEMO among "numerous international news outlets" reporting on the Saudi Miss World entry[24]
      • AFP occasionally uses it as a reliable source in factchecks.[25]
    • Unfavourable:
      • AFP reports MEMO passed off an anti-Saudi satirical article as true. The story may have been intended as light-hearted fiction, but other websites have since reproduced it without clarifying that it was made up for fun. The Middle East Monitor and Zambian entertainment site Tumfweko relayed the story, as did India’s Times Now before issuing a correction.[26]
      • Annenburg's Factheck.org finds it misrepresenting a video of IDF violence (In addition to the video, the post includes a link to an Oct. 30 article in the Middle East Monitor, a website that says it supports the “Palestinian cause.” That article includes a quote that reads: “Israeli commanders made ‘difficult decisions’ including ‘shelling houses on their occupants in order to eliminate the terrorists along with the hostages.'” The quote is attributed to a security coordinator at Kibbutz Be’eri, one of the settlements attacked by Hamas on Oct. 7. But the aerial footage shown in the post comes from a longer compilation video shared by the IDF on Oct. 9 on X [which] shows aerial bombings at several sites[27]
      • Misbar finds it (along with Al-Mayadeen) falsely claiming on its social media channels that a settler stabbed a Palestinian woman, based on video that was in fact an intra-Palestinian domestic incident (as debunked by an Al Araby TV reporter).[28] The same website reports MEMO reporting fake news about Nike quitting Israel.[29]
    • Ambiguous:
      • Logically Facts lists it among "news sites" (the others are Al Jazeera, The New Arab, and Jordan News) using false reporting from Channel 14, Israel's version of Fox News.[30]
      • Jerusalem Post reports them making unconfirmed claims about Israeli organ harvesting[31]
      • Highly reliable fact checking site Lead Stories mention their report being used in social media misinformation about October 7 but not clear if their report is accurate or not[32]
      • It features in a failed fact check from Polygraph about Libya, but it's the person they're quoting that is failed rather than MEMO.[33]
      • An AFP factcheck of a false claim made in a viral video mentions a Middle East Eye and Middle East Monitor videos as the original sources of the video; the MEMO version was not falsely dated (as in the viral version), but was misleadingly captioned.[34] Elsewhere, AFP describes MEMO as "a UK-based not-for-profit press monitoring organisation".[35]
      • Politifact describes MEMO as "a publication that calls itself a supporter of the Palestinian cause"[36] Elsewhere, fact checking a viral video, it lists MEMO among "Some pro-Palestinian news outlets [that] shared the video that’s been circulating social media, but they provided no additional information to substantiate the claim."[37]
      • CAMERA UK, a partisan pro-Israel media monitoring organisation, complains about a Daily Express (low quality right-wing UK tabloid, which we consider generally unreliably ) report that it says reproduces Palestinian Authority propaganda, and adds "Moreover, it’s quite telling that the only other site we could find that covered this “horrific” report was the pro-Hamas site Middle East Monitor (MEMO). Interestingly, though, MEMO’s headline (“Report: Israel imposes $28,000 fines on Palestinian children”, June 4) is significantly more restrained than the one chosen by Daily Express editors."[38]
      • HonestReporting, another partisan pro-Israel media monitoring organisation, complains about an International Business Times report (we consider IBT unreliable): "The journalist gets his information from a range of sources and links to sites including: Terrorist organization Hezbollah’s Al-Manar website; Iranian government propaganda outfit Press TV; Anti-Israel hate site Middle East Monitor (MEMO)."[39]
      • CheckYourFact calls it "a pro-Palestinian lobbying group".[40]
      • Several fact checks have found its videos being repurposed with fake information in viral social media posts, but this doesn't say anything about its own reliability.

    Conclusion: not enough evidence of unreliability to call it "generally unreliable" but definitely enough to not call it "generally reliable" so probably yellow flag rather than red or green. Some RSs consider it a news organisation, but many consider it a lobbying group. I'd say: use with extreme caution, always attribute, try to triangulate if only partisan sources are available, be cautious if it's the only source, replace with better sources if any are available. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If that's a long way around of saying attribute anything controversial, I would go along with that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Is this over at last? That was a fairly big mountain of molehill. I must admit in the past of producing long documents adhering to all the standards when I wanted people to just give up and let something pass without comment, but that doesn't seem to work on Wikipedia thankfully. NadVolum (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ]Jerusalem Post reports them making unconfirmed claims about Israeli organ harvesting
    Their unconfirmed claims are actually significant evidence that they are generally unreliable. The claim is that Israel dug up or otherwise took dead bodies from graveyards and morgues and stole major organs from those bodies. This is scientifically impossible; for such organs to be viable the individual has to have died in hospital with the organs removed almost immediately. There is no way that organs can be retrieved from bodies that have been buried or left in morgues for any length of time. BilledMammal (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Jerusalem Post said that a whole slew of sources reported that, not just MEMO, who were mentioned once only in passing. So no, that is not significant evidence at all. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim is that Israel dug up or otherwise took dead bodies from graveyards and morgues and stole major organs from those bodies That claim is attributed to Euro-Med.
    It's about time we closed this time sink. M.Bitton (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not entirely; MEMO says, in their own voice, that there is evidence of organ theft. They also say "Moreover, Israel has made it lawful to hold dead Palestinians’ bodies and steal their organs." The first part of this is true - the second part is a falsehood. BilledMammal (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just read that article and it sounds to me as if the Euromed call for an investigation is on the right track.
    "There have been reports in recent years of the unlawful use of Palestinian corpses held by Israel, including the theft of organs and their use in Israeli university medical schools. Israeli doctor Meira Weiss disclosed in her book Over Their Dead Bodies that organs taken from dead Palestinians were utilised in medical research at Israeli universities’ medical faculties and were transplanted into Jewish-Israeli patients. Even more concerning are admissions made by Yehuda Hess, the former director of Israel’s Abu Kabir Institute of Forensic Medicine, about the theft of human tissues, organs and skin from dead Palestinians over a period of time without their relatives’ knowledge or consent. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hiss stole from Israeli's, Palestinian's, and foreigners. Weiss' book discusses his actions; the fact that these sources omit these highly relevant facts raise serious questions about their reliability and neutrality, but it does not support these claims. BilledMammal (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I said stands: you misattributed a statement to MEMO.
    What MEMO said cannot be dismissed just because you don't agree with it.
    What has been quoted by Selfstudier makes JP's dismissal of the well-founded concerns look ridiculous. M.Bitton (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What did I misattribute? MEMO says, in their own voice, that there is evidence of organ harvesting. They also say, in their own voice, that Israel has made it lawfully to steal Palestinian's organs. BilledMammal (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I quoted (in green) what you misattributed to MEMO. Please don't do that again. M.Bitton (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article I linked also says that it is documented that bodies were taken from hospitals, and these are the bodies it is referring to when it says there is evidence of organ harvesting. You are right that it does fully attribute the claim about dug up bodies - I confused the various different sources I have seen on this, and will try to be more careful in the future - but the substance of my statement was correct.
    Can we now move on to discussing what MEMO actually said? BilledMammal (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the substance of my statement was correct the substance of your statement is based on a misrepresented source. M.Bitton (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In Report: Israel destroyed 192 mosques in Gaza Strip, they claim The Israeli occupation army has destroyed 192 mosques in the besieged Gaza Strip since 7 October, Israeli media outlets reported. As far as I can tell, Israeli media made no such claim - although a month earlier the Gaza Media office claimed that 192 mosques had been damaged. BilledMammal (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So because you can’t find their source that means they are wrong? Yeah, that’s not how any of this works. nableezy - 21:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So based on your own OR and your status as a reliable source, you make this edit ?? Selfstudier (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A source, of questionable reliability, claimed that Israeli media had said something. There was no link to the Israeli media, and a search finds no Israeli source making the claim - although it does find non-Israeli sources making the claim a month prior that 192 mosques had been damaged, and it finds Al Mayadeen, an unreliable source, claiming that Israeli media reported that the Israeli Occupation Forces had left 192 mosques destroyed during the span of the aggression. If you look at the article, you'll see that the similarities also extend beyond that; most of the content is the same.
    I think that is more than sufficient reason to remove the content on grounds of reliability.
    Further, I think the unattributed reliance to a generally unreliable source is more than enough reason to find this source generally unreliable - if we can't trust the information when it is on Al Mayadeen, we can't trust it when it is on MEMO. BilledMammal (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fuentes video

    Revising down my opinion of MEMO a little having noticed they published a video this week of fascist antisemite Nick Fuentes, without indicating that he might be problematic. They just call him an “an American political commentator” and apparently approve of his view that Israel “controls” America “through bribery, espionage, and corruption”. Currently top of their “current news” section (news! even though obviously opinion). [41] BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And Myron Gaines also features in the clip, interviewing Fuentes as if he’s the voice of MEMO, and saying it’s “100% a fact” that the Israel lobby is all-powerful. This is Gaines: https://www.mediamatters.org/manosphere/misogynistic-manosphere-influencers-embrace-nazism BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, massive red flag for me. Even a modicum of research would show who Fuentes is, and either they didn't do the research, or they don't care. Toa Nidhiki05 14:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    as if he’s the voice of MEMO, how did you come to that conclusion?
    saying it’s “100% a fact” that the Israel lobby is all-powerful. some people have a very good reason to believe that's the case, so where's the problem with that and why should MEMO censor him when the so-called RS give a voice to the Islamophobes and anti-Palestinians of the worst kind? M.Bitton (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just put it here https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-750425 Vegan416 (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing to do with MEMO. Is there anything else or is that it? M.Bitton (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is much more at his wikipedia article. And the point was this "they published a video this week of fascist antisemite Nick Fuentes, without indicating that he might be problematic" and "Currently top of their current news section (news! even though obviously opinion)". Vegan416 (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't need to do censor him to please Israel and its allies who give a voice to the Islamophobes and anti-Palestinians of the worst kind (without describing as such). M.Bitton (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not here to right great wrongs. FortunateSons (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't do it then. M.Bitton (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When I first saw the video, I assumed it was MEMO interviewing him and Gaines was the interviewer. I only subsequently realised it was an extract from Gaines’ podcast. They took an extract from a Nazi podcast, of a prominent fascist being antisemitic, and put it on their website — as “news” — with absolutely no context. That’s simply not the behaviour of a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He is an American political commentator, that's a fact, everything else is an opinion that professional journalists such as those working for the BBC wouldn't use. So where is the problem? M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the first citations on his article, you would see that there are quite a few choice words to describe him other than commentator. FortunateSons (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeat, him being a commentator is a fact, everything else is an opinion or a label that professional journalists don't use. Did you read what I wrote about the BBC? M.Bitton (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The bbc describe him as far-right and white nationalist FortunateSons (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not when they are interviewing him. Is there anything else? M.Bitton (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not possible to prove a negative, and perhaps some indication of political leaning would have been appropriate? FortunateSons (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do the so-called RS (associated with Israel and its allies) give an indication of the political leaning of the Islamophobes and anti-Palestinians that they often interview (when not stating their BS as facts)? M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have an interview of one of them with someone who is as prolific as Fuentes? FortunateSons (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't and I certainly don't intend on looking for one. Back to the subject: is there anything else about MEMO that we need to discuss? M.Bitton (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this will be likely heading for an RfC anyway in the long term, so I don’t have anything for now FortunateSons (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did the BBC ever interview him? Vegan416 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so, but I have never seen them insult a host. M.Bitton (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody asked them to insult him in his face during the interview. But when publishing the interview they could add a description of his extreme views in general, so the viewers can asses him better. Or better they could refrain from interviewing him in the first place. Like the BBC apparently did... Vegan416 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They could do all kind of things that you approve of, but like the other RS, they don't have to and as long as they don't fabricate stories (like the NYT), then everything is how it should be. Also, they don't have to copy anyone or let someone else decide for them on whom they should interview (for the sake of freedom of speech, etc.). M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not an interview, it’s a video from a podcast posted to their instagram account. Should they have posted that? I wouldn’t have. Does it have anything to do with their actual reporting? Meh. nableezy - 18:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct it’s not an interview. Nor is it “news”. What it has to do with their reporting is: they chose to bring very fringe views into their news section even though it isn’t vaguely newsworthy, they mislabelled very extreme opinion as news, they gave so little context in simply calling him “an American political commentator” as to be misleading. I don’t see how you can’t get that makes them an unreliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    put it on their website — as “news” they didn't. What they did do is mention what an American commentator said in his own voice. Is there a problem with that? M.Bitton (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They literally did. It was filed in the “latest news” section of the website. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the tagging or section on the website, the actual content consists purely of an Instagram link and a headline, so it is self-evidently not their own reporting or news. There's not much more to be said than that. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly distinguishing between opinion and news is a usual indicator of a reliable news source, often invoked on this bulletin board. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They did mention what an American political commentator said in his own voice. Again, is there a problem with that? M.Bitton (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Presenting fringe views as commentary isn't the same thing as presenting them in the publication's voice, endorsing them, or presenting incorrect information. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah but it’s just an instagram post, yes also posted the same to their website, and I get the problem here but this isn’t reporting or something that anybody would cite anyway. So meh. nableezy - 22:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And they’ve taken down the video. They have also posted Bill Maher saying the Jews have right of title to Palestine. That they post people talking on podcasts isn’t the newsiest thing to do but I don’t see how this is really something to spend time discussing. nableezy - 22:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sad reality is that Nick Fuentes is a not-insignificant American political figure despite the fact that he's horribly racist, and he famously had a meeting/dinner with former President Donald Trump. Describing him as "an American political commentator" is not inaccurate, nor are his statements not newsworthy.
    Per Iskandar "Presenting fringe views as commentary isn't the same thing as presenting them in the publication's voice, endorsing them, or presenting incorrect information."
    - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His meeting with Trump was newsworthy. His guest slot on a Nazi podcast isn’t. If it was newsworthy, a news organisation would report it, explaining who he is. MEMO didn’t do that; they just put him out there as a legitimate voice. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The news agencies (secondary sources) decide what is newsworthy and what isn't, that's their prerogative. M.Bitton (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes indeed. |"nick fuentes" "donald trump"| generates hundreds of google news hits, while |"nick fuentes" "myron gaines"| generates just ten, most from Media Matters for America, and all of which describe Fuentes as a white nationalist Holocaust denier and Gaines as a Nazi-embracing misogynist manosphere activist. The extent to which MEMO is an outlier here shows how fringe it is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a lot of irrelevant WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Media analysis is not OR FortunateSons (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant "whatever" that is based on someone's analysis is always irrelevant. The bottom line is that news agencies are free to give a voice to whomever they choose (that's what freedom of the press is all about). M.Bitton (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Media sources, including very reliable ones, publish the views of questionable figures all the time. The NYT published a piece written by a Hamas politician a couple of months ago. Meanwhile, the WSJ published a piece by a far-right who has a history of making racist anti-Arab statements. An no, the WSJ did not mention Smotrich's racist statements when presenting him as an author.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Did NYT and WSJ file these opinion pieces under “news”? Did NYT miss out mentioning that their guest author was from Hamas? I agree Smotrich is a disgusting racist, but he’s a government minister and WSJ make it clear who he is, and in fact his (clearly labelled) opinion piece is premised on the fact the US media sees him as “far right”. If MEMO had chosen to interview Fuentes or give him an op ed, that would reflect badly on their integrity (and might suggest they are fringe) but would not be a reliability issue. But what they did was showcase his appearance on a Nazi podcast, gave no context whatsoever, and filed it under news. This is a reliability issue. I’ll try not to come back to this again because obviously it’s not the only piece of evidence to be weighed, but it’s important not to misrepresent what happened. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Did NYT miss out mentioning that their guest author was from Hamas?" Actually, yes. They simply introduce him as mayor of Gaza city (which is true) without mentioning his Hamas credentials. Likewise, the WSJ doesn't mention Smotrich's racism when presenting him. Giving context for Fuentes is absolutely not necessary for MEMO's reliability. The only issue I see here is MEMO accidentally misfiling this under news instead of opinion. VR (Please ping on reply) 20:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Having read through this discussion, I'm impressed; the lead of our article on MEMO makes it sound like they're super fringe, so one would think it'd be no trouble to cite lots of examples of them being unreliable, but instead this discussion is this long and the only evidence seems to be a couple nothingburgers where they reported that someone said something which that person did say, or reported stories other, bigger RS also reported. I'm just not seeing anything actionable here...? -sche (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-opinion articles containing falsehoods and antisemitic canards:
    1. More extremist than their Israeli paymasters - In this, MEMO denies that Raed Salah made antisemitic remarks. Salah had previously said We [Muslims] have never allowed ourselves to knead [the dough for] the bread that breaks the fast in the holy month of Ramadan with children's blood. Whoever wants a more thorough explanation, let him ask what used to happen to some children in Europe, whose blood was mixed in with the dough of the [Jewish] holy bread - indisputably blood libel. The article itself comes close to antisemitic canards such as "Jews control the media".
    2. MEMO Comment: Is Britain's new ambassador to Israel really going to be objective? - MEMO describes Matthew Gould as having two masters, with Israel being the second one because of his Jewish faith. Clearly Antisemitic trope#Dual loyalty.
    Opinion articles written by MEMO's senior editor, expressing antisemitic canards:
    1. George Osborne needs a reality check - It is almost de rigueur for politicians to pay homage at the court of the Board of Deputies and, in the process, pledge allegiance to, sorry, support for the State of Israel.
    2. Is Israel now the unofficial 51st State of the United States of America? - quotes a long disproven line saying "Jews control America", along with other canards.
    Outside of its publications, MEMO has tweeted antisemitic images, such as by depicting Israel as an octopus, organized lectures by Holocaust deniers and had their employees deny the holocaust. BilledMammal (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All your examples are nothing out of ordinary. If we were to ban all media that have ever made anti-Palestinian, Anti-Arab, anti-Russian, anti-Semitic, anti-Chinese, anti-European, anti-German, etc. remarks, we'll be left with virtually zero sources. — kashmīrī TALK 22:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Washington Post also deleted an anti-Palestinian image it had previously published. https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2023/11/08/washington-post-hamas-cartoon-michael-ramirez/ Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A few more examples, some from the talk page of MEMO's article:

    • Jewish News: The CST [ Community Security Trust ] accused MEMO of peddling conspiracy theories and myths about Jews, Zionists, money and power.[42]
    • Jewish Telegraphic Agency: On Monday afternoon, i24News, an international news cable news network based in Jaffa, reported that Corbyn visited Israel and the West Bank to meet with Hamas officials in 2010. According to the report, Corbyn, then a minor MP, was flown in by Middle East Monitor, a British organization which has accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing” and whose rhetoric was described as “strikingly familiar [to] older forms of antisemitism” by the Community Security Trust, British Jewry’s anti-Semitism watchdog.[43]
    • A professor writing for conservative thinktank Hudson Institute reporting MEMO (described as "Islamist-oriented") as promoting a conspiracy theory about red heifers, 2023.
    • The Jerusalem Post saying MEMO was one of a series of Iranian, Turkish and other Middle Eastern outlets ("anti-Israel media in the Middle East") that laundered shady rumours designed to weaken UAE and Israel, 2020.
    • Faith Matters, which I believe is a Muslim-led organisation, has an article about Middle East Eye peddling a conspiracy theory, which mentions the MEE journalist, David Hearst, writing an apologia for antisemitism in MEMO, 2019.
    • The Milli Chronicle saying that MEMO has spread an Iranian-sourced fake story about Saudi Arabia(An article shared almost 7,000 times on Middle East Monitor claims that Saudi Arabia has authorised an incorrect translation of the Quran and implies that it this was done to please Israel. The news was shared far and wide by anti-Saudi blogs and social media pages. The news however, is fake. The article claimed that the Masjid Al Aqsa was changed to “The Temple” which is the Jewish name for the third holiest site of Islam. The claims got even wilder where it was claimed that Saudi authorities allowed the name of, the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad (‎ﷺ) to be deleted from the Quran. The source of this claim is the biggest concern. Middle East Monitor claims their source as “Shehab News Agency”, an extremist blog which was removed from Facebook in 2015 for promoting extremism and anti-Semitic content. More specifically the source is “researcher on Israeli affairs, Aladdin Ahmed” which upon closer inspection leads us to the original article from which the Middle East Monitor article seems to be taken. The Iranian website Iqna.ir which published the same story 28 hours before Middle East Monitor. They place their sources as the same video and the same individuals.) 2020.
    • Moment accuse MEMO of helping to spread a fake story about Israel and George Floyd(There were many others who claimed direct Israeli responsibility for deadly force used against African Americans. The Middle East Monitor (MEMO), a press monitoring organization that has been characterized as a group that promotes Jewish conspiracies and is pro-Hamas, circulated a cartoon of an Israeli soldier instructing an American policeman in a classroom on how to kneel on someone’s neck.) 2020.
    • Al-Jazeera noting that MEMO was one of a few outlets reporting a made-up story about an Islamist flotilla heading for Israel, 2024.
    • [Arab News and Al-Arabiya allege that MEMO published a made-up story about Emirates Airlines without any kind of verification, 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobfrombrockley (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Reliability of WION

    Following both previous discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315#Is WION a reliable source? and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#WION News, should WION News can be considered as unreliable? 103.230.81.135 (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I would kindly ask you to add the voting options used for RfC on this noticeboard. FortunateSons (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the reliability of WION, also known as World is One News?

    Unlike Daily Mail, which is considered unreliable and depreciated. WION is an Indian news channel owned by Essel Group, which also owns Zee Media. The site contains extensive India-related articles, celebrity facts, and others does not itself as a generally reliable source.

    wionews.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 --85.94.24.29 (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Option 3. I watched a lot of WION before, and I stopped watching it as it is geared towards the ruling BJP party. Ahri.boy (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC: The Anti-Defamation League

    In an earlier thread, editors expressed concerns regarding the ADL's current status as a generally reliable source in several topic areas. I'm breaking these topic areas into different RFCs, as I believe there's a reasonable chance they might have different outcomes. Loki (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Part 1: Israel/Palestine

    What is the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict?

    Loki (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (ADL:I/P)

    • Option 3. The ADL is heavily biased regarding Israel/Palestine to the point of often acting as a pro-Israel lobbying organization. This can and does compromise its ability to accurately report facts regarding people and organizations that disagree with it on this issue, especially non-Zionist or anti-Zionist Jews and Jewish organizations. Loki (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. Its CEO publicly comparing the pro-Palestine protestors wearing keffiyeh with Nazis wearing swastika armbands as well as mispresenting all pro-Palestine protestors as "wanting all zionists dead" demonstrates its skewed views and manipulative presentation on the IP topic and thus highly unreliable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. No evidence has been posted of unreliability - of them making false claims. It's unclear to me why we are even hosting this discussion without such evidence, and in the absence of it we shouldn't change ADL's rating. BilledMammal (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4. Contrary to BilledMammal's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-esque reply, the previous two commenters have concretely pointed out multiple examples of their unreliability. Here and here are two articles detailing many more instances of the ADL's specious and less-than-credible reporting, as well as its history of intimidating, harassing, and bullying its critics and critics of Israel. The ADL has a history of celebrating ethnic cleansing and lauding and defending right-wing anti-Semites, all of which belie their apparent stated intentions of being an organization working to Protect Democracy and Ensure a Just and Inclusive Society For All, and provide clear evidence they are a pro-Israel advocacy organization masquerading as a human rights group. I could go on. It just isn't a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination on anything but the most quotidian of claims. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Reading those articles, they don't appear to be discussing matters of factual falsehood, but of differences of opinion, as well as actions taking by ADL that the authors disagree with. If I am wrong and have misunderstood those articles then please correct me and provide quotes.
      In fact, those articles even say that in terms of "use by others", ADL is still considered reliable by top quality reliable sources! For example, The Nation article says The problem is that The New York Times, PBS, and other mainstream outlets that reach millions are constantly and uncritically promoting the ADL and amplifying the group’s questionable charges.
      If we declare that ADL is unreliable here we will be taking a fringe position that most mainstream sources would disagree with. BilledMammal (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you sure you mean option 4? Option 4 is deprecate, which has never been done for only one topic area of a source before, because it means removing the source from any article it appears in for any reason. Loki (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "questionable charges" is an accusation of unreliability. Zerotalk 04:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this !vote is in the wrong section as none of the ADL claims the Nation and Jewish Currents articles are critiques are about antisemitism and not about Israel/Palestine. The two critiques (both opinion pieces) largely refer to questions of interpretation or to historical co-operation with and the US state and not any questions of fact. I can't see either critique actually saying that a single factual claim made by ADL was inaccurate. And, as BilledMammal notes, the critiques acknowledge that many RSs do judge them as reliable, so deprecating would be a perverse response to the critiques. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3: This is an advocacy group so the threshold is higher than for a standard peer-reviewed secondary source. Recent coverage suggests that the sources is not only biased but may be unreliable. For example, The Nation dismantles ADL's claims that "U.S. Antisemitic Incidents Skyrocketed 360% in Aftermath of Attack in Israel" and asks ...why does the media still treat it as a credible source? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The Nation (or, rather, the Nation's contributor) is attacking a strawman here. The ADL press release caveats the data as "preliminary", explains that "incidents" are not the same as "attacks" and, as a press release, would count as a WP:PRIMARY source that should only be used with caution anyway. The NBC reporting of the press release shows how it is transparent and thus can be easily be used carefully: The ADL said antisemitic incidents increased 360% in the three months after Oct. 7 compared to the same period in 2022. However, the group also said that the data since Oct. 7 includes 1,317 rallies that were marked by “antisemitic rhetoric, expressions of support for terrorism against the state of Israel and/or anti-Zionism.” The group said such rallies held before Oct. 7 were “not necessarily included” in its earlier data. Ditto CNN: However, since October 7, the ADL added a category to count rallies that they say have included “antisemitic rhetoric, expressions of support for terrorism against the state of Israel and/or anti-Zionism.” It’s unclear whether rallies were tracked last year. This new category has helped to account for the increase in antisemitic incidents over the last three months, with the ADL tracking 1,317 such incidents. Without those numbers, the US has seen a 176% increase in antisemitic incidents of harassment, vandalism and physical attacks compared to the same three-month period last year. In short, the Nation article (a) doesn't help us know if it is reliable as a source on Israel/Palestine, and (b) does not establish general unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The CNN story includes this note: Clarification: This story has been updated to include additional information about how the ADL tracks incidents of antisemitism since the start of the Israel-Hamas War. CNN first went with the ADL's number of "361%" from the press release in the Jan 10 version of the article, but then had to revise the story to add three new paragraphs and the "176%" number, to reflect statistics without incidents newly categorized by ADL as antisemitic. In anything, this suggests that ADL is an unreliable source to the point that news outlets that rely on its reporting have to issue corrections after the fact. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3Option 4 Sources that we classify as WP:RS have documented not only bias (which is not proscribed as per WP:BIASEDSOURCES), but blanket inaccuracies with respect to its content on the issue of Palestine/Palestinians and the Israel/Palestine conflict. For example:
    • The Intercept reported [44] that the ADL stated the Students for Justice in Palestine "provided material support to Hamas" despite there being no evidence for that assertion and the claim being widely discredited after it was made.
    • The Boston Review writes that "the ADL has a long history of wielding its moral authority to attack Arabs, blacks, and queers". [45]
    • The ADL often takes opinion positions on questions adjacent to these before making wild, 180 degree turns on those same questions. For instance, it opposed the Sufi Islamic Center in New York on the grounds that it was "not right" [46] but then declared that they, themselves, were not right for having opposed it in the first place. [47] It is difficult to build encyclopedic content on a source with this type of editorial schizophrenia.
    • Most importantly, the ADL's own staff, as per The Guardian, have criticized the accuracy and veracity of the ADL's claims on this topic. [48] Can we call a source RS if the source itself questions whether it's reliable?
    For these reasons, I believe it should only be used, with respect to Israel/Palestine, as a source for its own editorial opinions and never for anything else, and particularly to reference WP:BLPs.After further consideration of Brusquedandelion's comment, I'm changing my !vote to Option 4, understanding that deprecating for a single topic area presents significant editing difficulty and may be unprecedented. Chetsford (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC); edited 01:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) One by one:
    1. This appears to be a situation where we don't know the truth; some reliable sources say one thing, and others say the opposite. That isn't basis to declare a source generally unreliable.
    2. That appears to be the author disagreeing with the positions and actions taken by ADL, not declaring that they are pushing false statements. Again, this isn't a basis to declare a source generally unreliable.
    3. Organizations are allowed to reconsider past positions and statements. Indeed, the fact that they have reconsidered in this case would suggest they are a better source now than they were ten years ago - and certainly isn't a basis to declare a source generally unreliable.
    4. Those staff don't appear to be saying that ADL is pushing falsehoods, but instead that they disagree with the ADL on the definition of antisemitism. As the exact definition is a matter of debate, I don't consider disagreements in that area as a basis to declare a source generally unreliable.
    This just continues the issue of equating sources disagreeing with the positions that ADL takes as being evidence that the ADL is pushing falsehoods. If there is evidence of ADL pushing falsehoods then please present them, but absent such evidence I see no basis to downgrade the status of this source. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your feedback. I've responded to your critique in the discussion section. Chetsford (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the ADL stated the Students for Justice in Palestine "provided material support to Hamas", I just reviewed both the Intercept article and the ADL document it is referring to. The Intercept only says the ADL suggested that SJP had provided material support, while the [https://www.adl.org/resources/letter/adl-and-brandeis-center-letter-presidents-colleges-and-universities ADL document only asks that universities investigate whether local SJP chapters had provided "material support".
    There is no basis in that article to downgrade ADL - possibly basis to consider it biased, but nothing further than that. BilledMammal (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I encourage you to avail yourself of the discussion section. Chetsford (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 (and my objection to option 4 is only that I am opposed to deprecation on principle). After AIPAC, the ADL is the primary propagandist for Israel in the United States. All of its pronouncements regarding Israel are based on the advocacy role it has adopted and not based on an unbiased analysis of the facts. Zerotalk 02:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      All of its pronouncements regarding Israel are based on the advocacy role it has adopted and not based on an unbiased analysis of the facts Bias is not a basis to consider a source generally unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Remove the word "unbiased", it is not the point of the sentence. The point is "not based on .. the facts". The bias is why they are unreliable. Zerotalk 02:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. First, I agree with the argument by BilledMammal above and unconvinced by specific examples of allegedly unreliable reporting. As of note, none of "generally reliable" sources is 100% reliable. Secondly, there is a big wave of antisemitism related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I think it is actually worse than many other manifestations of antisemitism. Hence, the sourced views by ADL related to the conflict should be included even if they seem to be unfair to some people. My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that there does appear to be "a big wave of antisemitism related to the Israel-Palestine conflict" and anti-Palestinian sentiment (although they presumably mostly tap pre-existing reservoirs), a problem, I guess, is not that it may seem unfair to targets, it's that it may be inaccurate and defamatory. Does this matter given that it is a POV? I'm not sure. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem isn't that it is unfair, but that it is inaccurate, including with respect to the reporting of antisemitism, as detailed in The Nation's analysis. The very inability to maintain its bearing/credibility in a time of crisis is precisely what is deteriorating it as a source. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Nation is a partisan source in itself. The Nation's subjective opinions on definitions of antisemitism are not a justified ground to disqualify another reliable source. Vegan416 (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Partisan in the the sense of progressive within US politics; not partisan on the IP conflict. So that's irrelevant. Otherwise, the Nation is an actual newspaper with an actual editorial board, which places it lightyears ahead of the ADL in terms of reliability. No comparison. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We all know that these days being progressive within US politics (as opposed to being liberal or conservative) also almost always means pro-Palestinians views. Furthermore the Natation article doesn't actually bring any example of pro-Palestinian groups that do not oppose the existence of Israel and were marked as antisemitic by the ADL. The only group mentioned there by name is SJP, and representatives of this organization have declared many times their opposition to the existence of Israel. See for example here:
    https://nycsjp.wordpress.com/points-of-unity/:
    "We identify the establishment of the state of israel as an ongoing project of settler-colonialism that will be stopped only through Palestinian national liberation."
    https://theaggie.org/2018/07/06/students-for-justice-in-palestine-kill-and-expect-love/:
    "it is an ideological fantasy to really believe that progress is possible so long as the state of Israel exists [..] The goal of Palestinian resistance is not to establish ‘love’ with those who are responsible for the suffering of the Palestinian people; it is to completely dismantle those forces at play."
    It should also be noted that the SJP “points of unity” state that "It is committed to ending Israel’s occupation and colonization of all Arab lands", and some SJP members and chapters explicitly refer to the Israeli occupation as having started in 1948, when Israel was founded. In July 2018, Tulane’s SJP chapter wrote that “Israel’s occupation [of Palestinians land] began seventy years ago”. In May of 2018, SJP at DePaul University distributed fliers claiming that Israel has engaged in “70 years of occupation.” Vegan416 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be battling a few strawmen. The Nation was raised solely in the context of its analysis on the mislabeling of antisemitism incidents. Your opinions on progressive US politics are by-the-by, and no, you can't assume this to mean partisan in an IP setting. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I can definitely assume this to mean partisan in an IP setting as well. This is the result of all this progressive "intersectionality" idea.
    2. This is "mislabeling" of antisemitism incidents only according to The Nation progressive intersectionality opinion. It is not so according to the mainstream view. The subtitle of the article in The Nation laments "So why does the media still treat it [the ADL] as a credible source?". Well guess what? It is precisely because the mainstream media doesn't agree that the ADL is mislabeling these groups. Mainstream media mostly agrees that groups like the SJP who explicitly call for the end of Israel, are indeed antisemite. Your view, and The Nation's view, that they are not antisemite, are the fringe here.
    Vegan416 (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't get to label RS analysis opinion because you don't like it. No idea what you mean by 'intersectionality' here, but it sounds like gobbledygook. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iskandar323
    Intersectionality is a central concept in progressive thinking nowadays. I am surprised you didn't hear of it. I suggest you read the wikipedia article on it. As for you calling it "gobbledygook", I dont mind it personally, not being a progressive myself, but it might offend some of the progressive editors here.. Vegan416 (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Secondly, there is a big wave of antisemitism related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I think it is actually worse than many other manifestations of antisemitism.

    Both of these points are false, as numerous reliable sources have pointed out, but are exactly the narrative the ADL advocates for, and thus your vote is thoroughly unsurprising. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. As documented in depth and breadth by multiple users in the discussion above and in multiple comments of this RfC, the ADL does not have the credibility necessary for us to consider their content reliable sources. There is untenable distortion by the ADL of the circumstances of the geopolitical situation in the region as well as of the behavior and activities of organizations that pertain to it such that we cannot rely on the ADL to report facts accurately. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: Generally reliable. No evidence was shown of the ADL making false claims. See more detailed comment in the second survey about antisemitism.Vegan416 (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 for all the reasons stated above. Would be happy with Option 4 if we could get consensus.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 because as discussed earlier, it is partisan pro-Israel advocacy group which has historically been engaged in espionage and defamation campaign against pro-Palestinian activists, and its broadened definition of antisemitism. Their reliability on the topic has been put into question by the Guardian and the Nation, both RS per WP. Attribution is required for any claim; and for controversial claims, probably best not to be used at all. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 The ADL has consistently misidentified critics of Israel as anti-Semitic, has proven credulous to disinformation that supports Israel and has experienced negative reputational outcomes from its engagement on the topic. It should not be used as a source as it is thoroughly unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 per the arguments made above and in the prior discussion, the ADL is considered reliable (but biased) and worthy of citation by many RS in regards to the topic area (interpreted broadly), including but not limited to the New York Times [1],[2], the BBC [1], [2], Washington Post [Clarifying that not all negative use of 'Zionist' is antisemitism, FAZ, and many others. They and their opinion are considered reliable by many, but particularly controversial claims should be attributed, applying the same policy applying to other civil rights groups as well as biased news sources. Common sense should be used. Extension based on arguments by me and others (14.04.24): there seems to be a few suboptimal arguments used by some which are wholly or partially unrelated to reliability, including but not limited to the use of the IHRA definition and other definition of antisemitism, internal and external debates related to issues that on Wikipedia are considered to be bias and not unreliability, and other issues of (non-fringe) bias; none of those actually meet the definition of unreliability. Excluding those and similar points that are closer to Idontlikeit than a general policy based argument seems prudent. That being said, a few points that could go beyond the likely frivolous were brought up, specifically
    1. the change in methodology on the reporting of antisemitism: this is true, however, it was not shown that a significant amount of the claims made by the ADL are covered by no non-fringe definition of antisemitism. The likely change in methodology was poorly reported by media, an issue that was appropriately addressed. As the statement we would cite would be something along the lines of “ADL says Y”, a short clarification should be included where appropriate (via footnote or text), but no issue of long-term unreliability is apparent. The relevant discussion can be found below.
    2. the inclusion of actions at protest, even if no specific person was attacked: that’s definitely a choice that can be disputed, but including (allegedly) hateful (or more accurately, assessed to be hateful) slogans when listing hateful actions even when those don’t target a specific individual is not per se inappropriate.
    3. bias: bias, particularly insofar as also reflected by much of MSM, is in no way a factor for unreliability. The broad use (discussed below) is a further sign that usebyothers is undoubtedly met, despite the minor clarification required for the point above.
    4. old errors: are just that, old. Most of them are historic and align with either historical narratives or media reporting at the time, but that’s not a contemporary issue and also a case where other policies (like the ones about using best available sourcing) would already prevent use even if the current status in maintained. (The question regarding the accuracy and reliability of those specific claims about errors seemed to be unclear last I checked that discussion anyway, but that’s also not of relevance.

    To summarise, a more policy-based discussion would have been significantly more productive, as many of the disagreements are wholly or partially unrelated to the reliability of the source and its use for facts. On that note, some of the votes seem to have had issue differentiating between the categories, an issue regarding which I do not envy the closer who will have to sort through them. FortunateSons (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • None of these sources are using the ADL as a source for facts on Israel/Palestine. Some of them are using it as a reliable source for facts about antisemitism in the US, which is the topic of the survey below. Two of them attribute to the ADL the opinion that the "river to sea" slogan is antisemitic, but they do not say this is a fact in their own voices. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      They use them as a source for facts/their credited opinions in regards to conduct related to I/P, mostly by Americans/people from western countries. According to my interpretation of many of the comments made, the exclusion of statement like 'ADL says “statement X about Israel is antisemitism”/“group Y is antisemitic”/“this is over the line of criticism of Israel and into antisemitism”' would be included by this as well. If it’s not, I’m having a hard time finding statements made about I/P that are of relevance, let alone warrant this discussion, they don’t generally comment on geopolitical details. FortunateSons (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 based on the ADL's long-standing inaccuracy, advocacy and now increasingly unhinged misinformation on IP-related matters. The source's problems have intensified significantly under Greenblatt, but it cannot be chalked up to just this. That there have been no calls for leadership changes despite both external critique and the raising of internal grievances (over its intolerable extreme blurring of its civil rights and political advocacy) points to a general breakdown in the checks and balances within the organisation. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. Unreliable normally means publishing information which is factually incorrect. I don't see a lot of evidence of this. What I do see is opinion being published as fact. When the ADL characterises something as anti-semitic, that is often more an opinion than a fact. Lots of advocacy organisations do this, and for all of them, we as editors need to strengthen our skills at identifying such opinions, and decline to bless them in wikivoice. Therefore I don't think we can say this source is unreliable, but we should warn editors to wear extra insulation when handling it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3, as per Zero because I am opposed to the application of option 4 in almost every case, except egregious hate sites and the like.

      The ADL has consistently called for laws and measures that consider as possible examples of connivance with terrorism significant movements which protest in solidarity with an occupied people, i.e. Palestinians. It does this because its agenda tends to collapse core distinctions between demonstrating on behalf of human rights (in Israel/Palestine) and anti-Semitism defined as anti-Zionist disavowels of the legitimacy of Israel as a state. In its practice, advocacy for Palestinian human rights should be subject to criminalization. (Alice Speri, How the ADL's Anti-Palestinian Advoacy Helped Shape U.S. Terror laws, The Intercept 21 February 2024)

      For its director Jonathan Greenblatt, opposition to Israel/anti-Zionism (by which he appears to mean criticism of Israel’s human rights record) is intrinsically ‘antisemitic’. His position was so extreme that even ADL staff protested at the equation of critics of Israel with those white supremicists groups which the ADL has distinguished itself in exposing. (Jonathan Guyer, Tom Perkins, Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics The Guardian 5 January 2024).

      (Justin) Sadowsky (of the Council on American–Islamic Relations), who is Jewish, characterizes some of ADL’s actions as part of a pattern of deliberate intimidation to make it “very difficult for Palestinians to talk in a forthright way about what’s going on”, (Wilfred Chan ‘The Palestine exception’: why pro-Palestinian voices are suppressed in the US The Guardian 1 November 2023). And they do distort information, because their lists of antisemitic incidents do not discriminate between normal protests and serious incidents of antisemitic behaviour. Spitting on Christian priests in Jerusalem is commonplace and the ADL has protested the practice regularly, but, if that is noteworthy for them, the same cannot be said for protesting extreme human rights violations by Israel against Palestinians, which are endemic and yet, it appears, not noteworthy.

      Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The ADL doesn't mark mere criticism of Israel an antisemitism. It only marks calling for the destruction of Israel and denying its right to exist as antisemitism. See https://www.adl.org/about/adl-and-israel/anti-israel-and-anti-zionist-campaigns. And this is a mainstream view. Vegan416 (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you take the ADL at its word.Noted.Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you prove otherwise? Vegan416 (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't need to. I gave some sources challenging the ADL's claims, and you merely cited the ADL "protesting too much" without troubling yourself to examine those sources' claims and documentation. I am not going to participate in another poinjtless thread. I'll just note that

    While criticism of Israeli policies and actions is part of that discourse, certain forms of anti-Israel rhetoric and activism delegitimize Israel and its existence, and are antisemitic when they vilify and negate Zionism – the movement for Jewish self-determination and statehood

    Well, all ideologies - and Zionism is an ideological construction based on ethnic exclusiveness - are closed systems of thought that are by self-definition and practice, hostile to the sort of thinking fundamental to an open and democratic society, a principle theorized by Henri Bergson (Jewish-French). An anti-Zionist could equally define, on solid grounds, Zionism as 'the movement for the denial of Palestinian self-determination' as the tacit but, in historical practice, acknowledged corollary of that definition of Zionism, since Zionism asserted its claim when Palestine was 95% Arab, noting that half of the world's Jewish population is thriving elsewhere regardless, and does not appear to think that an ethnic state is its default homeland.Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nishidani
    As you well know, when Zionism was formed 130 years ago there was actually no Palestinian national identity to speak of. Regardless of that Zionism doesn't necessarily contradicts the self-determination of the Palestinian nation. For this there is the idea of a two state solution. As for those hard right-wing Zionists who are opposed to the two states idea in principle, and deny that the Palestinians have a right to self-determination, I have absolutely no objection to calling them "anti-Palestinian". So why do you object to using the word "anti-Jewish" or "antisemite" to describe the anti-Zionists who are opposed to the two state idea in principle, and deny that the Jews have a right to self-determination? Why the double standards? Vegan416 (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't make thoughtless comments like that. If there was no Palestinian identity in 1900, there was also no Zionist identity, since less than 1% adhered around that time. It's like saying the white colonisation of Australia, declaring the land terra nullius, was fine, even though several hundred cultures were erased, and the entire population of Tasmania exterminated, because the aboriginals had no identity unlike the invaders who were 'European'.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is veering pretty close to WP:NOTFORUM. Your personal opinion regarding the historicity of the Palestinian national identity is noted. It is also entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is WP:NOFORUM I'll send you a private comment on this Vegan416 (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The ADL doesn't mark mere criticism of Israel an antisemitism. It only marks calling for the destruction of Israel and denying its right to exist as antisemitism.

    This is a distinction without a difference for those, such as the ADL, who feel every criticism of Israel is an assault on its existence.
    But more importantly, there is nothing inherently antisemitic about wanting to abolish a state. Mandela wished to abolish the Boer state in South Africa, but not because of anti-Boer prejudice. Reagan wished to abolish the Soviet Union—did he hate Russians? Numerous politicians in Washington no doubt wish to dismantle China—are they Sinophobes? Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It really isn’t identical, for example (afaik), the ADL generally doesn’t mark criticism of specific politicians as antisemitic. You can argue about where the line between antizionism and antisemitism and it is legitimate to support versions like the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism over the IHRA. However, even that version would likely show a non-insignificant increase in antisemitism.
    On the rest of the discussion, we are going off-topic, we are not here to argue the IHRA as a whole, only if it’s fringe enough to have impact on reliability. FortunateSons (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nishidani: Going through those sources I'm seeing allegations that ADL is biased, but not that it is unreliable - that it is producing misinformation. If I am incorrect, can you quote from those articles where they allege that the ADL has promoted falsehoods? BilledMammal (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ADL is well aware that the methods it uses have been criticized as flawed, yet it refuses to change them to conform with standard statistical sampling methods. That means that it concocts misinformation.
    Back in the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, the ADL immediately came forth with alarmist figures, whose methodology a serious analyst with competence in statistics and hate crimes duly questioned /pulled apart. See Mari Cohen, Closer Look at the ‘Uptick’ in Antisemitism Jewish Currents 27 May 2021.
    So aware of, but not responsive to, the technical criticism of its methods, now it has issued its latest analysis

    The ADL released its annual antisemitism report on Wednesday, announcing that there were a stunning 3,283 such incidents in 2023. That’s a 361 percent increase compared to the previous year, according to the organization, which noted the “American Jewish community is facing a threat level that’s now unprecedented in modern history.” . . . The ADL report was widely covered by mainstream outlets.

    the ADL acknowledged in a statement to the Forward that it significantly broadened its definition of antisemitic incidents following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack to include rallies that feature “anti-Zionist chants and slogans,” events that appear to account for around 1,317 of the total count. Arno Rosenfeld, ADL counts 3,000 antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7, two-thirds tied to Israel: The group changed its criteria from prior tallies to include more anti-Zionist events and rhetoric. The Forward 10 January 2024.

    The ADL released its annual antisemitism report on Wednesday, announcing that there were a stunning 3,283 such incidents in 2023. That’s a 361 percent increase compared to the previous year, according to the organization, . . . . . The ADL report was widely covered by mainstream outlets like CNN, NBC, and Axios, which simply took the organization’s word for the gigantic increase without actually checking the data behind the claim. Not all media outlets fumbled the ball, however. . . The ADL admits in its own press release that it includes pro-Palestine rallies in its list of antisemitic incidents, even if these featured no overt hostility toward Jewish people. Any anti-Israel or anti-Zionist chants are enough for the ADL’s new definition of antisemitism.Adrienne Mahsa Varkiani, ADL Officially Admits It Counts Pro-Palestine Activism as Antisemitic The New Republic 10 January 2024.

    That new statistic with its deplorable attempt to press a panic button to get everyone in the American-Jewish community feeling as though they were under mortal siege is rubbish, and exposed as such. Worse, as noted, the ADL's ballsed up statistics were taken and repeated by major mainstream outlets without doing any checking. That's why it is unreliable, certainly under the present direction. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be based on a disagreement about the definition of antisemitism; the narrower definition preferred by you and some sources, and the wider definition preferred by the ADL and other sources, as well as several nations and supranational entities.
    For example, your Jewish Currents source gives "Zionism is racism. Abolish Israel" as an example of a statement that the ADL considers antisemitic, but the author of the article considers to be "more accurately described as anti-Zionist". In this case, ADL's position aligns with the Working definition of antisemitism, specifically "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
    You can disagree with this position, but is is not a fringe position and there is no basis to consider ADL unreliable because of it. BilledMammal (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Working definition of antisemitism is the result of political attempts to define the topic, and then pressure to have its provisions enacted in law. As framed, it certainly got a toe-hold among politicians, but has veryt very little credibility as a definition in the scholarship. I was taking a person to the Exhibition Buildings Museum some months ago, and came across a pro-ceasefire demonstration. I stopped for a chat, and a donation, and the atmosphere was pleasant. The day afterwards, a young women wrote to the Age and said that as a Jewish person, she felt quite 'uncomfortable' even though she too endorsed a ceasefire. Uncomfortable because it was sidedly 'pro-Palestinian' (i.e. the major victim). Many reports of campus 'harassment' examined turn out to be interviews with Jews who feel 'uncomfortable' (of course there are the usual idiots who shout injurious remarks) in these contexts. Much of this enters the register as 'antisemitic' by organizations like the ADL who fail to carefully assess reports. When I see the word 'uncomfortable', I think that kind of discomfort, if that was all, would be embraced by 2 million Gazans as infinitely preferable to what they must endure, now and for the rest of their prospective lives.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "the ADL acknowledged in a statement to the Forward that it significantly broadened its definition of antisemitic incidents following the Oct. 7" – there are a few ways to describe this, but "consistent statistical methodology" and "reliable source" are not among them. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The full quote from Forward is that the ADL acknowledged in a statement to the Forward that it significantly broadened its definition of antisemitic incidents following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack to include rallies that feature "anti-Zionist chants and slogans", but that conflicts with other sources such as the Jewish Currents one that told us in 2021 that their definition of antisemitic incidents had long considered "anti-Zionist chants and slogans" to be antisemitic.
    It also conflicts with publications from ADL, such as this 2022 article, which said Anti-Zionism is antisemitic, in intent or effect, as it invokes anti-Jewish tropes; is used to disenfranchise, demonize, disparage, or punish all Jews and/or those who feel a connection to Israel; exploits Jewish trauma by invoking the Holocaust in order to position Jews as akin to Nazis; or renders Jews less worthy of nationhood and self-determination than other peoples.
    Further, even if we assume that Jewish Currents and the ADL website is wrong and Forward is right, organizations are allowed to update the definitions they use, and there is no basis to consider them unreliable because they do so. BilledMammal (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A broadening of a definition (assuming it is apparent and communicated, which it is here), is not per se problematic, and definitely isn’t if it’s merely used to include IHRA. Based on my reading, it seems like the changes started to include some broadening, per the Forward source: Aryeh Tuchman, director of ADL’s Center on Extremism, which oversees the periodic tallies,said in an interview two years ago that his team generally only included incidents that had a clear victim — as opposed to general expressions of hostility toward Jews — and that there was a high bar for including criticism of Israel. Inclusion is only an issue if it is inaccurate, an assuming they are generally following IHRA (and accepting the common-sense fact that people can be discriminatory against their own ethnic, religious or other group), neither of which seems to be disproven by the article(s), who are instead critical of such choices, I see no indication that it is anything beyond biased.
    I have a specific concern regarding the republic article, as it appears that the Forward article is summarised in a misleading way: the forward article seems to describe inclusion of some “anti-Zionist“ incidents, while the republic implies all. Is that just me? FortunateSons (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you missing that after broadening its definition, the ADL then claimed there was a massive rise in antisemitic incidents, right after it significantly broadened its definition of "antisemitic incidents"? Loki (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some others have said that the majority of the changes pre-date the conflict, and many of the new changes are covered by IHRA. As long as they publicly admit the change (which they did), I don’t see the problem. FortunateSons (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Publicly admitted a dishonesty does not make it less dishonest, it just makes it easier to prove that there was dishonesty. It is perverse to use an effect admission of guilt as evidence of innocence, so to speak. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Publicly communicating a changing methodology is exactly the way you change methodology appropriately. It’s possible that they failed at that (which still would be a conduct and not a reliability issue, comparable to the nepotism hire topic on the nytimes discussion) FortunateSons (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In this case, ADL's position aligns with the Working definition of antisemitism,

    Yes, because, as the article itself points out:

    Accompanying the working definition, but of disputed status, are 11 illustrative examples whose purpose is described as guiding the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) in its work, seven of which relate to criticism of the Israeli government. As such, pro-Israeli organizations have been advocates for the worldwide legal adoption of the definition.

    The definition has nothing even remotely resembling or approaching scholarly consensus. It is a definition promoted by Zionist organizations; of course they agree with each other, what does that prove? Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s partially true, but not relevant: there is no other definition with scholarly consensus either, if they used Jerusalem or 3D, we would have the exact same problem. I personally prefer some other for reasons of practicality, but IHRA is the one most adopted by governments, NGOs (and companies). FortunateSons (talk) 07:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just blatantly dodgy statistical malfeasance and misrepresention (and even arguably disinformation); it's dangerous fear-mongering. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 As of late, the ADL has actively been not only producing more and more highly biased material in this subject area, but also misinformation as noted by others above and in the previous discussion. SilverserenC 14:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 the simple fact is that ADL is an aggressively pro-Israel organization which considers even questioning the legitimacy of Israel (a very young state founded under circumstances that are extremely dubious to day the least) makes it inherently biased. I’m not trying to wade into the “let’s use Wikipedia as a proxy to argue about Israel/Palestine” fight but the rough equivalent would be an Afrikaner advocacy group saying questioning the legitimacy of European colonization in South Africa is racist. Dronebogus (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dronebogus Even if your claims about Israel were right they are not relevant at all to the question of reliability of the ADL. But since you raised this, I must correct you. Your claims are false. Israel is not a very young state. In fact Israel is older than 136 (that is 70%) of the UN member states. And there is nothing dubious in the circumstances of its birth compared to the birth of other states. Vegan416 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I mean Israel had not been continuously inhabited by Jews for thousands of years, unlike say China which has always been inhabited by Chinese people. And “nothing dubious” about ethnic cleansing? I’m not saying it’s worse than other states founded on that premise, but if you think there’s nothing wrong with the Nakba I’m seriously questioning your minimum standard of “dubious”. Dronebogus (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - having read much of the extensive discussion and evidence presented above it is clear the ADL cannot be considered a reliable source. The ADL has been publishing and producing blatant misinformation and disinformation regarding the current conflict, exaggerating increases in anti-semitism in the United States by sneaky and cynical misrepresentation of statistics and openly equating literally any criticism of the Israeli government, politicians and military with anti-semitism. By falsely equating criticism of the Israeli government with anti-semitism, ADL is effectively attempting to replicate a chilling effect. This also serves to trivialise genuine anti-semitism, just as the ADL did to defend a virulent racist who they considered sympathetic to their cause. I don't need to re-state the countless examples of flagrant dishonesty from the ADL shown above, but it is fairly clear that we cannot in good faith trust this source. Perhaps the most damming evidence against the ADL is this article from The Guardian earlier this year in which multiple respected staff members of the ADL express serious concerns about the falsehoods coming from within the organisation, and declaring these falsehoods are "intellectually dishonest and damaging to our reputation as experts in extremism." If even their own staff no longer consider them honest, how can anyone? AusLondonder (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The Guardian article is about an internal disagreement over the definition of antisemitism; ADL says that it includes anti-zionism, in line with the working definition of antisemitism which, while controversial, is also widely accepted, while some employees strongly disagree. At no point does that article say that staff members of the ADL express serious concerns about the falsehoods coming from within the organisation - the closest the article comes is a quote where an employee expresses concerns about a "false equivalency" between antisemitism and anti-zionism, but this is just part of the dispute over the definition of antisemitism. If I've missed something, then please provide quotes from the article showing it - but from what I can see your claims about that article don't match it, and the article itself doesn't supporting removing ADL's "generally reliable" status, let alone downgrading it to deprecated. BilledMammal (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree with your characterisation of what the Guardian article is about. The relevant section "Some members of ADL’s staff were outraged by the dissonance between Greenblatt’s comments and the organization’s own research, as evidenced by internal messages viewed by the Guardian. "There is no comparison between white supremacists and insurrectionists and those who espouse anti-Israel rhetoric, and to suggest otherwise is both intellectually dishonest and damaging to our reputation as experts in extremism," a senior manager at ADL’s Center on Extremism wrote in a Slack channel to over 550 colleagues. Others chimed in, agreeing. "The aforementioned false equivalencies and the both-sides-ism are incompatible with the data I have seen," a longtime extremism researcher said. "[T]he stated concerns about reputational repercussions and societal impacts have already proved to be prescient." AusLondonder (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The Guardian article is also interesting in reporting on the ADL CEO praising Elon Musk just after Musk had endorsed a vicious anti-semitic conspiracy theory on Twitter/X, which prompted resignations from the ADL in protest. So ignoring genuine disgusting anti-semitism but going after Jews for Peace as an anti-semitic hate group because they want an end to the war in Gaza. Hugely trustworthy source... AusLondonder (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      ADL says that it includes anti-zionism, in line with the working definition of antisemitism which, while controversial, is also widely accepted

      You keep offering up this definition as if it proves anything other than that the ADL agrees with other Zionists. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It proves that it isn’t fringe, which is the relevant factor here. We can’t and shouldn’t esclude sources because they are zionists. FortunateSons (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 - it's a pro-Israeli lobbying group, not scholarship or journalism, and equates criticism of Israel or anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Citespam:
    As such, it is not an RS for this topic, generally unreliable. Levivich (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich Actually there is at least one other advocacy and lobbying group in the RS list here : The Southern Poverty Law Center. Vegan416 (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a US civil rights group working against racism in the US, for the US; it's an advocacy group, not a lobby group, because advocating for civil rights isn't lobbying on behalf of a third party. The ADL very explicitly lobbies on behalf of Israeli (foreign) interests. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iskandar323 Actually The Southern Poverty Law Center has a lobby arm as well - The SPLC ACTION FUND. They admit it themselves. See here for example - https://www.splcactionfund.org/news/2023/03/01/splc-action-fund-pursues-systemic-change-congress. And the question if certain group works for Americans behalf or other people's behalf has absolutely zero relevance to the question of its reliability. This in clearly a WP:NOTFORM. Drop that line of argument. Vegan416 (talk) 06:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be absurd. Of course being a lobby group has a bearing on reliability. A lobby group is paid to influence: it's perhaps the clearest conflict of interest. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say that being a lobby group doesn't matter. I said it doesn't matter who you are lobbying for. And the The Southern Poverty Law Center is also a lobby group as I have shown. Get into the link I posted. They freely admit it. Vegan416 (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to "the question if certain group works for Americans behalf or other people's behalf" – regardless of the advocacy/lobbying question, there is a clear gap between a group working on behalf of US citizens and residents and the foreign influence of a group working in the interest of another country/its dependents. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Drop that line. This may be of importance as an argument inside some internal American political argument, but it has absolutely no bearing on the question of reliability in wikipedia. Vegan416 (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an RFC about reliability on the IP conflict and we are talking about a literal lobby group that is open about its (paid) role to influence public opinion about the topic. That's a conflict of interest; the opposite of independent. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Yes. But I'm not talking specifically about the IP necessarily. I'm talking about reliability in the relevant fields for the SPLC. The SPLC is a lobby group in whatever fields they lobby (which might BTW contain also IP incidentally, but that requires further research), and therefore according to your logic should be declared unreliable in those fields.
    2. I don't understand tour comment about the payments to ADL. Who do you think is paying the ADL and how is this relevant here?
    Vegan416 (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SPLC's reputation is not great either: [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] Levivich (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich I definitely agree with that. So will you support reducing its reliability if and when such an RfC will be submitted? Vegan416 (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. There are signs that it is a fairly parallel case to the ADL as a group that once did some good work, but which has now clearly lost its way. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudos for the consistency. I have limited time to spend on wikipedia, and submitting an RfC on the The Southern Poverty Law Center is not in the top list of my projects. But maybe it will happen one day... Vegan416 (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my view of it, too, that ADL and SPLC are parallel cases. They're demonstrations that power always corrupts. They are victims of their own success: having gained the stature of authoritative neutral arbiters, it's clearly been too tempting for some to avoid using that stature for political gain, and once they sacrifice their neutrality, their reputation soon follows. Levivich (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that the ADL ever presented itself as "neutral". Neutral between whom? It was definitely never neutral between antisemites and Jews or between Israel and those who wish to delete it.
    I also don't know if I agree with the way you present the analogy between the ADL and the SPLC, but I don't know enough about the SPLC. Maybe you can bring the 3 worst things done by the ADL and the 3 worst things done by the SPLC (according to your view) and we can compare them? Vegan416 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SPLC is currently green on the RSP list, so building an argument for its unreliability should really happen in a different thread. If we compare ADL to SPLC and they come out the same or ADL comes out better, by current consensus that would make ADL green; if SPLC comes out better that wouldn't help judge if ADL should be green, yellow or red. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 The sources clearly demonstrate a severe bias in matters AI/IP, inclusive of weaponizing charges of antisemitism for political purposes in this area. Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 - lobby organization with zero expertise in the topic, the ADL has expertise in some topics but this is not one of them. Id add the following source to those showing its unreliability on the topic: Finkelstein, Norman G. (2008-06-02). Beyond Chutzpah. University of California Press. p. xiii. ISBN 978-0-520-24989-9. Among other propagandistic claims in the ADL "resource for journalists" one might mention these: the "Arab forces were significantly larger" than Israel's during the 1948 war (p. 2); "by May 1967, Israel believed an Arab attack was imminent" (p. 6); it was "understood by the drafters of the [U.N. 242] resolution" that "Israel may withdraw from areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip consistent with its security needs, but not from all the territories" (p. 9); "Israel has shown the greatest possible restraint and makes a determined effort to limit Palestinian casualties" (p. 27); "Most Palestinian casualties are individuals who are directly engaged in anti-Israel violence and terrorism" (p. 27); "Settlements . . . do not violate international law" (p. 31); and "Neither international law nor international statute calls for a Palestinian 'right of return' to Israel" (p. 32). These assertions have been wholly refuted both by Ben-Ami and by the mainstream scholarship cited in this volume. It is not a scholarly organization, it has no expertise on the topics of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Zionism, anti-Zionism, history of the Middle East. It is purely, in this realm, a pressure organization that uses misinformation and disinformation to push a false narrative. nableezy - 18:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oo, err ... those last two in particular are pretty dodgy: objectively false statements about international law. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The Most Palestinian casualties are individuals who are directly engaged in anti-Israel violence and terrorism has never been true either. Literally never. nableezy - 19:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You cannot use a controversial source like NF to disqualify other sources. Other RS dispute his factual claims here. For example regarding NF claim that this sentence from ADL "In May 1967, events in the region led Israel to expect that an Arab attack was imminent" is false see here (second page): "In 1967 Israel preempted what many of the state’s decisionmakers believed was an imminent Arab attack". I can go on with regard to all the other claims NF makes here, but then someone would probably say that is WP:NOFORUM, so I'll stop here. Vegan416 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To reduce Beyond Chutzpah to Finkelstein and whatever personal reputation he may have is to lose sight of the context of publication. This is not some WP:SPS blog post that Finkelstein made; it's a monograph published with a university press, and publishers have systems and processes of review. Had Finkelstein submitted as a manuscript an unsupportable screed without grounding in the scholarly conversation, the University of California Press wouldn't have published it. That they did publish it indicates we should not dismiss out of hand the book and what it reports. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This doesn't change the fact that other RS dispute his claim, and support the ADL claim on this point. Disputes between RS about facts (and needless to say opinions) are extremely common. Why should we trust in this case NF more than the RAND corporation? Vegan416 (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is that a serious question? A university press versus a think tank? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, thats just silly. A work of scholarship published by the University of California Press is WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which is our highest tier of reliability. You calling it "controversial" is cute but not important. nableezy - 20:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Finkelstein (a controversial source, as we can see from the thread up the talk page) is disputing a 2006 ADL publication called "Israel & The Middle East: The Facts", which can be found on scrbd but not on the ADL website, but I don't have access to scrbd or the Finkelstein book, so hard to judge this. Some of the issues NF contends are issues of interpretation (e.g. the balance of forces in 1948 or what Israel believed in May 1967) whereas there are some factual claims (e.g. that most casualties were not civilians) that indeed appear to be false, but I'd need to see the wording of the original before being certain. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Whether we consider the ADL reliable for verifying facts re the I/P conflict (or not), they have a reputation of being at the forefront of fighting antisemitism… and THAT is enough for us to say that their attributed opinions are absolutely DUE and should be mentioned. Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Don’t think that’s true at all, when those opinions are treated as noteworthy by third party sources then sure, but including their opinions sourced to their own publications? Hard pass. nableezy - 19:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a splendid model of exemplary methodology, the very impressive paper by L. Daniel Staetsky, Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain A study of attitudes towards Jews and Israel Institute for Jewish Policy Research September 2017, which came out at the tailend of a year of furious claims about the Labour Party and Corbyn's antisemitism problem (which led, with newspaper hysteria, 87% of the Jewish community according to one poll, stating that they would be afraid /consider moving to Israel, if Labour won - which the ADL's recent panicking of American Jews mirrors). Editors should familiarize themselves with Staetsky's sober analysis (it sets a scholarly benchmark for these things), and compare the way the ADL handles the issues. The latter looks shabby by comparison. No one would dissent I presume from the the ADL remains an important indeed indispensable resource for hate crimes generally, but their record on the I/P issue is, unfortunately, one of polemical defensiveness re Israel, and almost total silence about human rights abuses, which NGOs of global standing routinely cover, in book length studies every other year. That silence, and the way it otherwise blurs important distinctions to make out the Palestinian cause is strongly contaminated by antisemitism, undermines its credibility there. Put it this way, it has, certainly recently, discredited itself. Antisemitism is widely studied, clinically, by many distinct agencies and numerous scholarly works. It is not as if, were the ADL to shut down, our knowledge of antisemitism would suddenly dry up. It is, after all, such an obviously outrageous phenomenon that it scarcely escapes even the dullest observer.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 when it comes to the I/P conflict. Obviously it is a highly WP:BIASED source on that and could never be used on the topic without attribution, but that alone wouldn't make it unreliable. The real problem is that recent coverage has made it clear that their biases tainted their factual reporting to the point where it has harmed their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; see eg. [63][64][65] - they can still be cited via a third party, but we should avoid citing them directly on this. While it is true that they aren't generally described as publishing deliberate lies (which is why I'm for "generally unreliable" rather than deprecation), that alone isn't sufficient to make something a WP:RS. I don't think they should be cited as a primary source for opinion on this topic, either (outside of situations where it itself is the topic of discussion.) Most sources today treat them as an advocacy organization when it comes to Israel, and I do not feel that advocacy orgs, think-tanks, or other lobbying organizations that lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy should be used even for opinions; there is simply nothing notable or meaningful about a "hired gun" churning out the perspective it is being paid to churn out. --Aquillion (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict per the highly compelling arguments of Simonm223 and Dronebogus. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 with regards to Israel/Palestine. There are perhaps situations where its comments have some relevance due to its direct involvement, but hard to think of them.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. I don't consider pro-Israel bias alone to make ADL unreliable, but the above mentioned examples of false claims do. Cortador (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2/3. I find this particular question bizarre. ADL has absolutely no expertise on Israel-Palestine itself, and I cannot imagine why anybody would cite it in that topic area. Almost none of the comments above actually relate to ADL's claims about I/P but rather to its claims about antisemitism, the topic of the survey below. Although I cannot imagine why anyone would want to cite ADL on I/P, none only one of the comments above gives an example of ADL making false claims about the topic, and therefore "generally unreliable" would seem excessive. In summary: no reason to doubt reliability for facts about I/P but no reason to cite it on this topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [update: I missed one example, given by Nableezy, of a 2006 "fact sheet" about Israel/Palestine including false facts about the conflict. I think this pushes me towards option 3, although I can't see the fact sheet online. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Update 2: After reviewing our actual use of the source in this topic area, I am leaning back to option 3. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)][reply]
      Believe I posted false claims about the conflict unrelated to antisemitism. nableezy - 11:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not false. At most controversial. Vegan416 (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The claim that most Palestinians killed were involved in violence against Israel is false. The claim that settlements are not illegal is false. But kudos for modifying your earlier comment here. nableezy - 12:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      where and when did the ADL make such claims? Vegan416 (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It’s in the citation I offered above. nableezy - 13:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The citation you offered is from a book that claim to quote on a ADL document from 2005 (called "Israel and the Middle East: A Resource for Journalists"). But this ADL document is no longer available as far as I could check. Maybe you can find it? Apparently it was some booklet or PDF file or webpage that nobody bothered to archive. So you see, there are serious multiple problems with your argument that this evidence can serve to prove that the ADL is not reliable on factual claims:
      1. It is about claims of the ADL that were allegedly made 19 years ago. How is it relevant today?? If you had to go 19 years ago to find factual errors of the ADL, then it seems to me that they are pretty reliable on the factual side.
      2. Furthermore, it seems that these alleged quotes cannot be checked in their context, and that matters a lot. For example the claim that most Palestinians killed were involved in violence against Israel, might be correct in some context such as if talking about some particular war or operation, where indeed this was the case. And the quote about the settlements says "Settlements . . . do not violate international law". There is an ellipsis in the middle, and we have no idea what text was omitted. Maybe it said that there are some International Law scholars that claim that the settlements don't violate international law. If that's the case then the claim is actually correct, even if nowadays these scholars are in a small minority. But we don't know what the context was in both cases, because we don't have the primary source.
      3. Furthermore, it seems that these alleged quotes cannot be checked and verified against the primary source, which appears to have been lost. This point is particularly relevant because NF the author of this book is (beyond dispute) extremely biased against Israel, and also was found to make at least some egregious errors in his work, as had been pointed in the discussion about him above. While these allegations may not be enough to disqualify him as a reliable source in wikipedia, they definitely undermine using him as a source to disqualify other sources, when his claims cannot be verified by other sources. Vegan416 (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's actually a rather good demonstration that the ADL has been unreliable for the last two decades. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This will only be true if you can you show factual errors of the ADL regarding IP from the last say 5 years, rather than from 19 years ago (Assuming those things from 19 years ago are indeed incorrect. See points 2 & 3) Vegan416 (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Uh huh, since NF's books appear to rather more reliable than the ADL on the face of it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I missed this example nableezy. That does appear to be a case of some false claims of fact, though I can't actually see what the 2006 publication was as it doesn't seem to be online at all. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I’m sure I can find others, but there’s an eclipse out here so I’m spending the day outside and then in the car driving home for god knows how many hours. Will go back for more sources later. nableezy - 18:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've been looking through our use of ADL as a source. I found very few instances of it's use about I/P. I found two in the first couple of pages of hits. In our article Jerusalem we currently cite this "factsheet" (now no longer on the ADL website) for a claim about Jerusalem's significance to Jews. This is a bad use of ADL, as the "factsheet" is basically a list of talking points for pro-Israel advocates. Options 2, 3 or 4 would enable us avoid this sort of use. In the article Tel Aviv, we use this list of major terrorist attacks in Israel as the source for a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. This is a good example of a straightforward fact and the ADL reporting it reliably. Option 2 would enable us to continue using it unproblematically in this way, while option 3 would preclude this.
      So I think option 2 is the better choice than option 3. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: Generally Reliable. A reliable source is not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, according to WP:BIASED. Many NGOs, which are considered reliable, illustrate this point. ADL is an opinionated source that is openly pro-Israeli, for example, they openly say that "ADL works to support a secure Jewish and democratic state of Israel, living in peace and security with its neighbors" and "ADL speaks out when anti-Israel rhetoric or activism engages in distortions or delegitimizes Israel, crosses into antisemitism when it demonizes or negates Zionism, and uses anti-Jewish assertions and tropes". To be considered a reliable source, an organization is required to have good reputation for fact checking. When using *any* source, it's crucial to distinguish between opinion pieces and research, and to properly attribute opinions. Regarding ADL, their reputation for fact-checking in research papers has been excellent for over a century; thus, relying on them for facts presents no issue. Editors should exercise normal consideration of controversial topics and consider using attribution where necessary. For example, claiming something is or is not a "hate symbol" is more a matter of opinion than fact, serving as an example of something that should be attributed if disputed - but this is normal for every reliable source - that's why we use the word "generally". Marokwitz (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So this part: "ADL speaks out when anti-Israel rhetoric or activism [...] when it [...] negates Zionism is the real problem – because this is a mission to curtail free speech. You can't really be civil rights group AND be such an openly politically biased entity that you actively go after individuals and groups for simply opposing your chosen political ideology. That's more than a little unhinged – more so even than the rest of its mission as a US (not Israeli) NGO that isn't registered as a foreign agent (FARA). And editors have pointed out numerous issues with the ADL's presentation of facts; there's a lot of not listening here. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Iskandar323, like you I disagree with how the ADL understands anti-Zionism but can you show me the policy that says a source has to be committed to unlimited free speech before we consider it reliable? The question isn't whether it's really a civil rights group or not; it's whether it's reliable for facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Let's put it this way: I can't imagine another source presented as an RS with a stated mission to oppose those that reject its political position. All media has bias, but stating it is your mission to actively oppose certain politics is the hallmark of a determinedly agenda-driven lobby group, not a truth-oriented organisation. Most RS media with have a mission statement about a commitment to truth and the like. Most RS rights groups will have a mission statement about a commitment to their rights specialty regardless of politics. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      southern poverty law center Vegan416 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Iskandar323 @Bobfrombrockley Actually I'm not impressed at all by "a mission statement about a commitment to truth". This doesn't matter at all. Pravda also claimed to be committed to truth, so much that its name literally means "truth" in Russian. Yet we know that every second word in that paper was false.
      The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And the only way to asses reliability of a source is by looking at its actual record of factual reporting. This can be done in 2 ways:
      1. We do a systematic review and asses the rate of the sources factual errors. No source has 0 errors, but if the rate of errors is significantly higher than acceptable for RS then the source is unreliable. No such systematic review was presented against the ADL in this case. On the day of the eclipse @Nableezy have promised such evidence, but so far he didn't supply it.
      2. Since doing a systematic review requires a lot of work sometimes we can find a shortcut by WP:USEBYOTHERS. If indisputably highly reliable sources use the source under investigation we can assume that they had already systematically checked it "for us". I and others have presented sufficient examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS in the sections Reliable sources using ADL and Scholarly citations of ADL publications since 2020 from JSTOR below. Vegan416 (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please both stop pinging me and stop bludgeoning this discussion. Everybody knows what you think now, you can give it a rest and let the community decide. Sorry, but I have things in the real world that are more important to me than this discussion, I’ll get to it when I get to it. nableezy - 12:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 - as an advocacy group, it must be held to higher standards than other sources (per K.e.coffman). The evidence presented by nableezy, Levivich and Aquillion show that the ADL is publishing questionable content, including on Palestine, and that other sources are simply not treating them as scholarly. starship.paint (RUN) 12:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. I've never used it for anything related to the IP conflict as there are much better sources covering it. However no actual falsehoods have been presented, so no reason to downgrade it. The u:Brusquedandelion's examples are about people who disagree with their definition of antisemitism. Alaexis¿question? 13:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, here I'm !voting on using ADL for facts and opinions about the IP conflict itself. There are varieties of antisemitism that involve Israel (such as applying double standards to it), this belongs to the next section. Alaexis¿question? 21:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 despite the efforts to paint it as "questionable" above, I don't find anything compelling to list it as anything but a reliable source. Based on my own quick review of coverage, it appears that most media treat the ADF's reports as credible. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 or 2 Reliable sources don't appear to question their reliability, and the evidence presented contesting their reliability isn't convincing. Obviously they're not a neutral party on the matter, but sources don't have to be - and they're generally regarded as authoritative. Toa Nidhiki05 12:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have already linked to several reliable sources doing exactly that: question their reliability. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 It is frequently pointed out in discussions of Al Jazeera that sources that are biased are not necessarily unreliable. Applying that standard uniformly, as we must, the ADL is a reliable source on I/P. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why are you comparing apples to irrelevant oranges? No one is comparing the ADL, a lobby group, to Al Jazeera, a news source with bylines, masthead, editorial boarf and ethics policy. They're incomparable, and the standard to prove that the ADL is reliable, despite having no editorial controls, is far higher. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes they are not comparable. AJ has bylines, masthead, editorial board and ethics policy, Qatari government ownership and content that reflects it. Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with Iskandar that this is a terrible argument. Al Jazeera is a news organization with an editorial board and editorial standards. Their bias doesn't affect their reliability for facts.
      The ADL is an advocacy group, and it's increasingly clear that it's an advocacy group for Israel. They do not have an editorial board or editorial standards. They've even collaborated directly with the Israeli government in the past, according to The Nation. This does, pretty obviously, make them unreliable for facts and not just reliable-but-biased like Al Jazeera. Loki (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      While the ADL doesn't have editorial board (as it's not a newspaper) it has other processes installed for quality control, such as peer review. See here https://www.adl.org/research-centers/center-antisemitism-research Vegan416 (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if we take that centre's promo pitch at face value, it only represents its own output, which is only a fraction of the ADL's output, and so logically can't be reflective of the ADL overall. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, you take Al Jazeera's promo pitch about independent editorial board and independent editorial control at face value, then why not take the ADL's one as well? And this center is the part of ADL that is responsible for their publications on antisemitism. So it is very relevant to the second vote below about the ADL's reliability on anti-Semitism. I suppose this comment should have gone under that section, but I just responded to Loki's claims about lack of "editorial board" without paying attention to what section it was in. Sorry about that. Vegan416 (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's just a division within ADL, and unless content is specifically labelled as coming from the center, you don't know if it is or not. So again, this doesn't even reflect on the ADL is general, and no, two paragraphs do not establish that it is has standards. On the contrary, yes, I do appreciate the comprehensiveness of AJ's 340-page pdf on its editorial standards – do let us your know what you think is out of order. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And that "Gone With the Wind" length ethical standards document needs to be compared with the reality of coverage that has been widely condemned as advancing Qatari foreign policy and functioning as Hamas apologia, especially in its Arabic language coverage. Coretheapple (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You've rattled off this irrelevance about bias previously, and I didn't respond for that reason. Conspiratorial views about Qatar couldn't be less relevant to this discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 Not really much new to add; the ADL has generally lumped criticism of the Israeli government and/or its policies in with legitimate antisemitism, which at least to me indicates they aren't particularly reliable on the I/P conflict. The Kip 19:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 per My very best wishes and Marokwitz. They have a long history of fact checking and reliability, and are treated as credible by other reliable sources. GretLomborg (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 or 4 clearly a zionist advocacy group that doesn't represent Jews or humanity due to the utter irrelevance the group holds outside of the USA. Being called antisemitic due to holding anti-zionist or anti colonialist views is sophistry and subterfuge of the highest caliber, and as such this group cannot be taken seriously in matters relating to Palestine or Israel. JJNito197 (talk)
    • Option 3 The ADL has shown itself to be far too pro-Israel in their ongoing war against Hamas and have used their platform to attack people who have protested against Israel's actions. They are at the forefront of groups who try to equate even the slightest criticism of Israel's policies with anti-semitism. They also have recently been providing incidents of anti-semitism without evidence. An article they released recently conflated anti Israel protests on last weekend as being exclusively protests praising the actions of Hamas and included descriptions of signs yet did not provide photographic evidence of the more inflammatory signs they alleged to have seen. They have also called Jewish activists who do not support Zionism or Israel's policies as anti-semitic or useful idiots for anti-semites such as when they said that Jewish Voice for Peace was "[using] its Jewish identity to shield the anti-Israel movement from allegations of anti-Semitism and provide it with a greater degree of legitimacy and credibility." Additionally, they've repeatedly denied that American police officers travel to Israel to train in spite of the fact the ADL themselves have routinely paid for these very programs that they deny. Since October 7th, they've increasingly squandered their credibility as an authority on racism and hate in support of an increasingly unpopular foreign conflict that the international community has grown to condemn, even among governments that have supported Israel such as the United States.PaulRKil (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 An NGO which seems to smear every critic of Israely policies with an "antisemitic" allegation: No thanks. Huldra (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 Generally reliable on gauging what do Zionists in the United States think of the conflict, but far too biased for neutral overviews. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 per K.e.coffman and Zero. Biased sources can still be usable (although in this case, the bias is significant enough that it would at least be an option 2 situation, if they were this biased and still factual), but sources that let their bias get in the fact of being factual, and indeed (looking at this from a USEBYOTHERS perspective) require other sources which had initially used their facts to subsequently correct their own articles because those facts were not factual, well, that's option 3 or 4 territory. -sche (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 There are a lot of articles around that analyzed in depth how worked that website and what was their stance. The Nation 's[66] The Intercept [67] The Boston Review [68] The Guardian [69] explained very well with clear highly problematic cases what was wrong. Consequently in the end TADL is not a reliable source for an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Deblinis (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. Extremly reputable organisation. Obviously those designated as racists, or their friends, are noisy regarding the classification by organisations such as the SPLC or the ADL, however such noise expected. The ADL is very reputable. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Who are those and who are their friends? nableezy - 07:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 (with serious Option 2 consideration as currently outlined in current Perennial Sources listing) With understanding for shifts in the tone and agenda of the organization in recent years, I think it's a troubling notion to attempt to depreciate an organization that has generally been considered reliable for more than a century (and is still considered reliable by most identified RS). This does not appear to be a mainstream matter, but a partisan one. Most of the sources provided that are attacking the ADL's credibility are politically leaning or partisan (as are, with respect, 90% of the editors who have shown up on this page). There are obvious considerations to be made given the ADL's natural and obvious slant (as currently outlined in its perennial listing), but until a majority of sources who consistently rely on ADL reporting declare it to be unfit or unreliable (which, in spite of The Nation's protestations, they have not), I see no need to alter the rating of this organization beyond current considerations already outlined. Mistamystery (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And are the editors supporting ADL’s credibility, you included, not partisan? Get off it. nableezy - 19:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course. Almost everybody on this discussion, from all sides, is partisan. That's what Mistamystery said: "90% of the editors who have shown up on this page". That's why we have to stick to facts, and not opinions. To show that ADL is unreliable you have to show a significant number of factual errors in their reporting. So far nobody managed to do that. Vegan416 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I, and others, have already done that. That you dislike that doesn’t change that it has been established. Anyway, I don’t find engaging with you to be particularly fruitful or enjoyable so I’ll stop now. Toodles. nableezy - 21:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      N, That's not nice. I didn't say being partisan it was a bad thing. I'm glad people have strong opinions, but in terms of disqualifying a source that has been reliably used by other perennial RS, I'm going to need those editorial boards to chime in and prefer to rely upon that far more than a number of editors who routinely team engage in disqualification quests. Mistamystery (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You’re going to need some evidence for you aspersion about team engage in disqualification quests, and you’re going to need something besides a partisan recounting of who is partisan to disqualify the overwhelming majority of views here that find this source to be dog shit for this topic. nableezy - 21:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. Largely per Levivich and Nableezy above. I won't add more citespam or walls of text, but there is ample evidence above that we should not be parroting the ADL in wikivoice with regard to I/P. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 - generally reliable. ADL is a generally reliable source in its areas of expertise, including antisemitism, extremism, democracy technology and society. ADL has a strong reputation for fact checking and accuracy in most mainstream sources as demonstrated in many of the comments in this discussion, and it has three professional research centers with different expertise areas. While ADL focuses heavily on antisemitism, it deals with extremism on a global scale, not focusing solely on Israel and Jews, but also on white supremacy, racism and worldwide terrorism. https://www.adl.org/research-centers/center-on-extremism. HaOfa (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 or 4 Not going to duplicate or rehash the enormous walls of text I've written and replied to in the antisemitism section, one can simply scroll down for that. The TL;DR is that the ADL is a hyperpartisan source on this issue and their credibility has been severely damaged under their current leadership, to the point where even many high-profile members of the ADL have resigned in protest. The ADL's issues on I/P in particular aren't new, but they've gotten much worse. They are not a reliable, academic, or objective source when the Israel-Palestine conflict is involved. I'm open to option 2 for content that is completely unrelated to Israel, Palestine, or related subjects such as zionism. But the ADL should absolutely not be used as a source of information on those subjects, certainly not without attribution.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. After reading a lot of the above discussion, I would like to briefly comment. I took another look at the reliability consensus legend, keeping in mind that we are considering the source as it relates to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
    -For Generally reliable, "Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team." (bolding mine). On I/P conflict topics, I do not think we could fairly characterize the ADL as having a "reputation of fact-checking, accuracy and error-correction". As others have pointed out, in this area the ADL tends to make statements with advocacy in mind more-so than precision. A good example of this is shown in the The Intercept article which Levivich linked. Following the link to the ADL's original statement, the ADL wrote "we certainly cannot sit idly by as a student organization provides vocal and potentially material support to Hamas" (emphasis mine), referring to Students for Justice in Palestine. As noted in the article, the ACLU disputed that suggestion in an open letter here. The Intercept wrote "There is no evidence SJP has ever provided material support to Hamas". From an outsider's perspective, the ADL's words seem more like an attempt to smear the SJP than faithful reporting by an expert. It was at best an unsupported claim. This kind of behavior seems unbefitting of a source we could turn to as "reliable" on the Israel/Palestine conflict matter.
    -For Generally unreliable, "Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content." I think in this subject area (I/P conflict) it hits the mark of "questionable in most cases" as a source, particularly about the people and organizations it views as anti-Israel. HenryMP02 (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Part 2: antisemitism

    What is the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League regarding antisemitism?

    Loki (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (ADL:antisemitism)

    • Option 2 or 3. The ADL usually is reliable on antisemitism and antisemitic hate groups not involving the Israel/Palestine conflict. But it's very much not reliable on antisemitism when that antisemitism touches on the Israel/Palestine conflict in some way. This happens often enough that it hurts the ADL's reputation for fact-checking regarding this issue generally. Loki (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 or 3. The intentional conflation of antisemitism with antizionism is a huge problem to make it a reliable source on these topics. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. No evidence has been posted of unreliability - of them making false claims. It's unclear to me why we are even hosting this discussion without such evidence, and in the absence of it we shouldn't change ADL's rating. BilledMammal (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 Option 2 for pre-2016 andOption 3for 2016 and later I have no personal take on the matter, however, based on a cursory search, RS have repeatedly questioned the veracity of its statements regarding the topic, though these criticisms have been clustered over the last ten years. For example (not exhaustive):
    • Jewish Currents has repeatedly and acutely examined and criticized ADL's standards and methods for evaluating and determining Antisemitism (e.g. [70]).
    • Liel Leibovitz has criticized the ADL's statements on Antisemitism as being politically motivated (e.g. [71]).
    • Isi Leibler has written the ADL has "lost the plot" and used its research into Antisemitism as a "partisan political issue", rather than an objective method of evaluation ([72]).
    • As documented by Moment [73], the ADL has previously "cleared" allegedly Antisemitic persons before subsequently denouncing them as Antisemitic only after their evaluation itself has been criticized. This gives question to the reliability of their research or whether their statements are even based on an objective criteria at all.
    Based on these, and other, sources I would say that pre-2016 content sourced to the ADL is fine for non-extraordinary claims and 2016 and later content it is generally unreliable and should not be used except with attribution and not with respect to WP:BLPs. After reading The Nation article linked by K.e.coffman, I'm tipped to Option 3 without respect to time period. Chetsford (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC); edited 01:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 for anti-Semitism not relating to Israel and Option 4 for anti-Semitism in the context of Israel. It has been shown that the ADL conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and has in fact modified the way it defines anti-Semitism to include anti-Zionist rhetoric, especially in the last few years. It should be noted that "in the context of Israel" should be very broadly construed here, given the ADL's history of defending anti-Semitic remarks when made by people and organizations with a pro-Israel stance ([74] [75] [76] [77]) even when those statements themselves do not directly seem to relate to Israel, when viewed alone. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The ADL doesn't consider any criticism of Israel to be antisemitic or anti-Zionist (Anti-Zionism is distinct from criticism of the policies or actions of the government of Israel, or critiques of specific policies of the pre-state Zionist movement, in that it attacks the foundational legitimacy of Jewish self-determination and statehood.) [78] Alaexis¿question? 13:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The last source we should be using to define anti-Zionism is the ADL, which per this and the previous discussion routinely spouts nonsense on the topic. This above passage is actually damning in that it shows how the ADL creates its own strawman definitions as a means to manipulate the discourse. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3: This is an advocacy group so the threshold is higher than for a standard peer-reviewed secondary source. Recent coverage suggests that the sources is not only biased but may be unreliable. For example, The Nation dismantles ADL's claims that "U.S. Antisemitic Incidents Skyrocketed 360% in Aftermath of Attack in Israel" and asks ...why does the media still treat it as a credible source? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's possible that calling for the destruction of the only Jewish state in the world (from the river to the sea, you know), is not considered to be antisemitic by the Nation's James Bamford, but it's a matter of opinion and plenty of people disagree. Alaexis¿question? 07:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Precisely. As I had demonstrated in the source I brought in my vote here - most people agree that calling for the destruction of the only Jewish state in the world is antisemitic. Vegan416 (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'the only Jewish state in the world'. The Vatican is the only Catholic state in the world. That is a confessional state, however, not an ethnic state. To call for a state to drop its ethnic qualification for citizenship and extend recognition to that 50% of the population of Greater Israel which is non-Jewish is not tantamount for calling for the 'destruction' of that state. Were it so, it would be 'antisemitic' to subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and assert its relevance to the structural dilemma instinct in Israel's own self-definition as an ethnic state. Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont understand the Vatican analogy. Do you deny that the Jews are an ethnic group? Vegan416 (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes, if a post puzzles one, it is better to think its content over for more than 3 minutes, particularly if the said post distils a very large topical literature and presumes familiarity with it. I decline your invitation to make a thread of the idea of 'the only Jewish state in the world' (Italy, Ireland, Germany,etc.etc. are the only Italian, Irish, German states in the world).Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't invite you to anything. You commented on my comment without any invitation. Which is absolutely ok by me BTW. But I noted that you evaded my question about whether you deny the the Jews are an ethnic group. Vegan416 (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably because it is not germane to this discussion, run along now. Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact Germany has a right of return law for ethnic Germans, so I'm not sure why you mentioned it. Fortunately Germany is not in an immediate danger of destruction unlike Israel. Alaexis¿question? 13:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Germans didn’t steal Germany from another ethnic group. Dronebogus (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's also possible that intentionally conflating criticism of Israeli actions with "calling for the destruction of the only Jewish state in the world" is precisely the sort of stunt that makes ADL unreliable; thanks for the demonstration of how it works. Zerotalk 07:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop with the parlour tricks. The Nation neither mentions "calls for destruction" nor the "from the river to the sea" slogan. Not only can you not dismiss RS analysis with your own opinion/imaginings, but you also can not misrepresent a source for rhetorical purposes in a contentious topic area. Don't continue. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The only pro Palestinian group that The Nation article mentions as being recently classified as antisemitic by the ADL in SJP. And I have shown, based on reliable sources, that the the SJP does indeed call for the abolition of Israel. you can find a collection of citations here User talk:Vegan416#Referenced to SJP calling for the ending of Israel Vegan416 (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Alaexis, this comment is absolutely shameful and I implore you to strike it. I was going to write a longer reply addressing specific statements you and Vegan made, but I felt that doing so would cause the discussion to stray far from anything related to the topic of this discussion. I will instead just say that I +1 what Zero0000 said.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3, with possibility for attributed opinion in some cases. As a huge organization (revenue over $100 million) whose very existence is tied to antisemitism, it is strongly to their own advantage to talk up the incidence of antisemitism. This conflict of interest makes it necessary to consider their pronouncements on the subject critically, just as we wouldn't take the pronouncements of an oil company on fossil fuels at face value. Zerotalk 02:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 - Seems like a classic #2 per what I wrote here. The subject of antisemitism includes a broad range of ADL's work. As this is separate from the I/P question, we're presumably primarily talking about its work on antisemitism that isn't connected to the I/P conflict. So, for example, this report on exposure to extremism on YouTube from a few years ago. It's a great resource that's been widely cited in academic work/the press. Would it be considered unreliable because it includes antisemitism among its forms of extremism? Is there any reason to doubt that part? It wasn't even written by ADL staff, but by Brendan Nyhan and his colleagues, one of the most respected scholars on extremism on the internet. Still, it's decidedly an ADL publication, hosted on their website. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. First, I agree with the argument by BilledMammal above. Secondly, there is a big wave of antisemitism related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I think it is actually worse than many other manifestations of antisemitism. Hence, the sourced views by ADL related to the conflict should be included even if they seem to be unfair to some people. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Personal opinions on a source and beliefs that it has an important place in societal debate in a specific context are both unrelated to reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 or 2. While I'm somewhat more at ease with the ADL's coverage of antisemitism unrelated to Israel–Palestine matters, its misidentification of antisemitism as pertains to organizations and people involved with politics connected to Israel–Palestine is serious enough that it's difficult to still consider the ADL credible on the topic more generally. I quoted from Oxford University Press' Antisemitism: A Very Short Introduction a couple times in the above thread to warrant my sense that in particular, the ADL's conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism is well out of step from the field. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have amended my contribution to strengthen my preference for Option 3. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: Generally reliable. No evidence was shown of the ADL making false claims. In particular, its view that antizionism is sometimes a type of antisemitism is quite mainstream. For example, in 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance adopted a Working Definition of Antisemitism, one which subsequently was officially recognized by various legislatures and governments, foremost among them, the United States and France, which endorsed the equation of certain manifestations of anti-Zionism with antisemitism.
    And here are several references to RS which include support the claim that antizionism is antisemitism:
    https://books.google.co.il/books?id=767fCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA161&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
    https://books.google.co.il/books?id=BHtrEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA448&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/29/comment Vegan416 (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3Chetsford and Hydrangeans have explained it well.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 also as discussed before, ADL's conflation of antisemitism and antizionism has received widespread criticism, including increasing internal dissent from its own staff. Their figures on antisemitism has been put into question by RS like the Guardian and the Nation. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 or 3 generally reliable except when Israel is involved. Entirely unreliable where Israel is involved. Simonm223 (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Considering the split above, shouldn’t it be a 1 (or 1 or 2) here, as Israel is treated separately and you consider them GREL with exception to that? FortunateSons (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I voted the same way, and no. 2 is green or yellow with a note. 3 is red with an exception. 1 would be green without qualifications. Loki (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then I would apply the same to you: assuming a clearly divergent result, we would probably split it in two, the same way [[ Wikipedia
      Reliable sources/Perennial sources]] does HuffPost, where clearly different outcomes would be allowed, assuming the words used by @Simonm223 are meant the same way as they are generally used on Wikipedia.
      FortunateSons (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No. Please don't reinterpret my !votes to be more permissive than I said. It is tedious. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My apologies. Would you be willing to clarify which additional considerations you would consider applicable that go beyond the obvious non-inclusion of Israel into your vote? FortunateSons (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "except when Israel is involved" is an additional consideration. Loki (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately the tendency of the ADL to conflate antisemitism with anti-zionism cannot be cleanly separated. Through this they have cast their judgment on the topic of anti-Semitism, in general, in doubt. In fact I will update my !vote due to additional review of the arguments above. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 - usable with attribution for antisemitism not relating to Israel; and Option 4 (or option 3 if depreciation is impractical) for antisemitism in the context of Israel: The ADL has had a long-standing role, especially within the US, in identifying and critiquing patterns of antisemitism within society. Such assessments are rarely without controversy, and, as a particularly pointed advocacy group, the ADL should still be attributed when used as a standalone source (option 2). Where these assessments overlap with the IP conflict, for all the reasons outlined in the proceeding section, the ADL is not to be trusted and should not be used. It has a habit of both giving a free pass to antisemitic tendencies when the individuals involved align with it politically on IP, while also miscategorizing individuals and movements that fail to align with it politically on IP as antisemitic when they are not (including through the problematic conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism). This is pretty unforgivable, and its pronouncements on antisemitism within the context of the conflict (broadly construed, as mentioned by others) should be disregarded as deprecated/unreliable. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You can't really both deprecate and not deprecate a source because we have an edit filter that warns when you add links to deprecated sources. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 13:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah! Well that would fall under the 'impractical' clause then. Didn't realise the filter kicked in like that. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 But only if the subject matter doesn't involve Israel in any fashion. I would even say restricting them to just their commentary on known right-wing groups would be best. SilverserenC 14:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 pro-zionist lobbying organization that conflates anti-zionism (opposition to a nation with a well-documented history of human rights abuses) with antisemitism (hatred of the Jewish people). Dronebogus (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 or 4 ADL itself has now acknowledged that they count pro-Palestinian protests in the US as "antisemitic incidents" - this is an astoundingly dishonest misrepresentation of statistics. Even if a protest features no hostility or hatred towards Jewish people, if it features criticism of the Israeli government, Israeli politicians or the Israeli military, it is an "anti-semitic incident". The ADL is simply, by their own admission, making up these reports. This is nothing other than pure, politically-motivated disinformation. They should never be considered a reliable source. AusLondonder (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 as regards AS in general, Option 3 for AS in relation to Israel or the AI/IP area. Changing definitions to suit political objectives is classic Weaponization of antisemitism. Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 - because it is a pro-Israeli lobbying group that equates criticism of Israel or anti-Zionism with antisemitism, it is not reliable for the topic of antisemitism. See sources in my vote on the I/P question. Levivich (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. The specific problem raised by the sources is when Israel, Palestinians, and Zionism come up; it shouldn't be used in that context. But there's not much sourcing questioning its reliability in other contexts and it does have enough WP:USEBYOTHERS to be otherwise reliable, so when discussing antisemitism unrelated to the I/P conflict it remains fine. --Aquillion (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 for anything that does not involve Israel, Option 3 or 4 otherwise. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 for matters unrelated to Israel, option 3 for matters connected to Israel. The ADL is a useful source for attributed opinion on antisemitism unconnected to Israel/Palestine, however it makes inaccurate statements with regards to pro-Palestinian "antisemitism" even taking into account an extreme zionist view of what antisemitism might constitute. Simply speaking, we should not be including their claims in this regard without a very good reason.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 with attribution, as it's widely used by reliable sources. The criticism of ADL (see the links provided by u:Chetsford and u:K.e.coffman) is primarily about their definition of antisemitism [79]. We should not assume that James Bamford's definition of antisemitism is right and the ADL one is wrong. I haven't seen any examples of falsehoods that they published. Alaexis¿question? 07:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      First, “all definitions of antisemitism are equally (in)valid” is patently not true. ADL says antisemitism includes any criticism of zionism. There are Jewish people who oppose zionism and always have been, and I don’t think they’re self-hating Jews either. Secondly, plenty of examples of ADL publishing skewed/distorted information have been provided. So either you didn’t read the discussion very thoroughly or are deliberately ignoring those examples. Dronebogus (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dronebogus Your claim that "ADL says antisemitism includes any criticism of zionism" is patently not true. In fact the ADL explicitly says here and here that not every criticism of Israel and Zionism is antisemitism. It only considers antizionism as antisemitic when it delegitimizes the existence of Israel as the Jewish manifestation of self-determination (as it goes against the principle of self determination uniquely for Jews only) or if it used well known antisemitic tropes. And in those cases the ADL position definitely matches the Working definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which definitely carries more weight than the personal definition of antisemitism used by a certain James Bamford from The Nation, or even the personal opinions of entire editorial board of The Nation. Vegan416 (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      From the article: “The IHRA definition has been heavily criticised by academics, including legal scholars, who say that it stifles free speech relating to criticism of Israeli actions and policies.” Just because something is popular and politically correct doesn’t mean it carries more weight than other opinions. By that logic the opinion “homosexuality is evil” carries more weight than the scientific consensus that homosexuality is healthy and normal, because millions, possibly billions, of people agree with that statement and enshrine it in law. And no I’m not listening to anything the ADL says about itself because that’s the definition of a primary source, the last thing you’d go to in a controversial situation like this. Dronebogus (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      1. The fact that the IHRA definition has been criticized by some people does not change the fact that it is the dominant definition that was accepted by several democratic legislatures (including USA and France), by most mainstream media (this is after all what this The Nation's article laments about - why the mainstream media follows the ADL opinions on this. so the Nation itself admits that its view is not mainstream) and by many (probably most) academics in the field. At the very least you have to admit that it definitely doesn't carry less weight than the opinion of the writers in The Nation.
      2. The fact that the ADL sources are primary sources does not negate what I said. To say that "ADL says antisemitism includes any criticism of zionism", when the ADL says exactly the opposite, is a lie. Even if you don't believe they mean what they say, the fact remains that this is what they said.
      Vegan416 (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      On the “says” issue, I was speaking metaphorically. You’re missing the meat of what I was saying by arguing semantics. Really you’re just avoiding the whole point of this discussion— the ADL’s respectability is widely questioned —by delegitimizing any negative sources and making vague-wave appeals to authorities that are either unreliable and biased themselves (governments and the IHRA) or ephemeral (“most academics”) Dronebogus (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dronebogus Although I'm vegan I do not avoid the "meat of the discussion" :-) But what it is? To me it seems that the "meat of the discussion" is that you think that the ADL should be disqualified because they think that antizionism is antisemitism (in certain conditions). Am I wrong? Vegan416 (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not just because of that, but because many sources linked from here show their coverage of antisemitism and I/P are unreliable and biased. Dronebogus (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 regarding anti-Semitism in general, and Option 4 regarding anti-Semitism in the context as per Brusquedandelion due to the ADL conflating anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Cortador (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1/2. Nobody seems to provide evidence for ADL being inaccurate in its factual claims relating to antisemitic incidents, so I remain of the view I expressed in the first thread about this: I believe ADL is a reliable source for facts in the topic area where it has expertise, e.g. in reporting on right-wing hate groups or conspiracy theories. The problem is about its judgement in using contentious labels such as "extremist", which are labels WP generally ought to avoid anyway. It is also the case that it is hasty in labelling Israel criticism as antisemitic and fails to distinguish between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. For this reason, we should not say "X is antisemitic", citing only ADL. However, as it is heavily cited and notable, it would often be noteworthy for us to say "ADL describe X as antisemitic", balanced with noteworthy opposing views where applicable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. I have many, many, many grievances with the quality of the ADL’s coverage in my specific topic area (crime, especially high profile far-right motivated crime). However, deprecation is stupid, and generally unreliable is too much, so option 2. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As you've voted "additional considerations apply", could you be more specific about your issues? Which additional considerations do you think should apply? Loki (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The ADL is widely used onwiki to a degree that is disproportionate in articles on hate groups/crimes etc, which is worse because there are almost always better sources around. Their problems in this field go beyond bad research on hate symbols. Also as said before they conflate pro-Palestine activity with things like neo-Nazism in their classification of antisemitism - which is misleading.
      I think they should be okay to be used when it's considered appropriate to add that the ADL considers them a hate group but there should be additional considerations regarding including their fact-based work. My opinion generally is they aren't "generally unreliable" at all but that they are far from "generally reliable". Awkward middle ground where I think they're usable in some circumstances. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: Generally Reliable. A reliable source is NOT required to be neutral according to WP:BIASED - and obviously, this org is opinionated, however, ADL, and particularly its scholarly research arm, ADL Center for Antisemitism Research (CAR) is a respectable organization with a peer-review process and upholding academic best practices. Marokwitz (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 - an advocacy group, it must be held to higher standards than other sources (per K.e.coffman). When this source conflates antisemitism and anti-Zionism, evidence by Levivich (previous discussion), Aquillion (previous discussion) and Brusquedandelion, it should not be considered a reliable source on antisemitism. starship.paint (RUN) 13:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 per Chetsford, Levivich and others who have demonstrated that it's an unreliable source on antisemitism. M.Bitton (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 per others above and the fact that their definition of anti-semitism is widely accepted by both reliable sources and aligns with other relevant organizations/authorities. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 unless we develop a special method for covering the prior definition of antisemitism (roughly, against Jews) versus the one currently held by some institutions (roughly, against Jews or Israel) with clarity. Certainly, we do not try to conflate then 1820 definition of the term "gay" with its 2020 usage, and would offer clarifying text wherever there might be confusion. To suggest that it is a mere clarification is wrong. Even before the existence of the state of Israel, large portions of religious Jewery resisted the effort because the religious conditions for that nation to arise had not yet been met. We should no more hold that what one set of Jews feel is important to Judaism is right and another wrong than we should hold that one set of Christians are the true Christians. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nat, what does this have to do with this specific source’s reliability? The implication of what you’re saying is that any source that uses any definition of antisemitism is generally unreliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If I say "I describe someone as Canadian if they are from Canada or if they have red hair", then I am not a reliable source on identifying Canadians, for there are certainly Canadians with red hair, but that doesn't make it appropriate identification. The same goes for "I describe someone as antisemitic if they are against Jews or are against the state of Israel." ADL may be a reliable source for identifying ADL-branded Antisemitism-2.0 (for whatever good that does us), but they are not a reliable source on actual antisemitism as the term has been traditionally used. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 Highly reliable on this specific subject matter, and per BilledMammal, the evidence to contest their notability in this area simply doesn't exist - while many, many sources treat them as authoritative, to the contrary. Toa Nidhiki05 12:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 The ADL has a long track record for tracking antisemitism and, bias notwithstanding, its factual record is excellent as observed above. Criticism has tended to be partisan and politically motivated. Coretheapple (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2/3 with regard to Israel, Option 1 otherwise per my above vote. Like I said, I can't exactly trust them on I/P-related matters, but I've seen no indication of unreliability regarding antisemitism originating from other areas. The Kip 19:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 per My very best wishes and Vegan416. No evidence that it is making false claims, and it's widely used by other reliable sources. GretLomborg (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 on antisemitism not in I-P context: OK to use with attribution. ADL is not reliable to use or antisemitism in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Their statement that "There is no argument anymore that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, that is as plain as day" is quite concerning. Thus I'd say Option 3 on antisemitism in the I-P context Even so, ADL remain a reliable source for their opinions on antisemitism in the I-P conflict, wherever such opinions are WP:DUE.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 for any ADL views on the I/P conflict and on campus antisemitism. Hillel which has an intimate capillary knowledge of and familiarity with Jewish students on over 800 campuses has just failed the ADL's report giving it an F-grade.(Andrew Lapin, ADL’s new ‘report card’ for campus antisemitism gets an F from Hillel and some Jewish students The Forward 12 April 2024. Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      When you read the Forward article beyond the title you see that those Hillel people don't disagree with ADL regarding the rise in campus antisemitism. They just wish to emphasize that Jewish life continue to thrive on the campuses despite the rise in antisemitism, and they think ADL should have factored this into the "grade" it gave different campuses. So this isn't really relevant to the reliability ADL assessment of the rise in antisemitism per se. Vegan416 (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 it seems to smear every critic of Israely policies with an "antisemitic" allegation: No thanks. Huldra (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3/4 ADL correctly points out some genuine cases of antisemitism, like whatever Kanye was talking about last year, but generally speaking it just uses it as a word to silence Palestinians. I'm leaning towards deprecate, but it could occasionally be used when all other sources fail. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 or 2 for antisemitism that has no connection to I/P (option 3 for anything connected to I/P), per Loki and Rhododendrites (and particularly echoing Rhododendrites's point that the setup of this RFC, where I/P is a separate section, suggests this section is indeed only about antisemitism unrelated to I/P). As others discussed in the preceding section, they're not reliable on I/P issues, and because they often regard disagreement with Israeli policies as antisemitic, I'm not sure setting a different "number" for their coverage of antisemitism vs I/P is workable, because they present (unreliable) I/P reporting as reporting on antisemitism: probably it's best to say option 3, which is—after all—only "generally" unreliable, and let case-by-case discussions evaluate instances where they're actually reporting on antisemitism. (I use "reporting" loosely here, understanding that they're not a news organization filing news reports, but an advocacy group.) -sche (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 they are broadly cited by almost any organisation, and are often considered the baseline for any claims about or regarding antisemitism, considered equivalent to a newspaper of record when it comes to tracking and reporting antisemitism and related conduct. No significant issue regarding their factual reporting has been shown, and all opinions should (as always) be attributed. On the topic of antisemitism, they are rightly considered one of the prototypical case of a civil rights group which can be cited for facts, and neither their reporting nor any conduct seems to have disqualified them from „generally reliable.“ FortunateSons (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      On a more general notes, there seem to be a few de-facto duplicate votes that ignore the (in my opinion, prudent) distinction between the subject areas, which is unfortunate. FortunateSons (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In the spirit of thinking the best of all editors, including any who posted such duplicate votes, to use your words, I would suppose that they consider the ADL's coverage of the topics sufficiently interrelated that similar reasons and similar assessments of reliability apply to all three. While I also think it was prudent to make separate surveys for each topic area, I can see how an editor might arrive at thinking they are interrelated to such an extent. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I can understand how they have reached such as assessment, and you’re right about AGF, thank you. That being said, I would consider such a vote to not be best practice even with a degree of good will far beyond AGF. As you have given me an opportunity to clarify, I would add the following: this sentiment applies to a significantly lower degree to all whose arguments in vote 1 were unrelated to I/P or Jewish self-determination (construed broadly), but to the inherent nature of the organisation. This category, by my reading of the votes and arguments, seems to be the smaller group, but I could be wrong. FortunateSons (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 per Vegan416, Alaexis, and others. They are highly reliable, broadly cited, and have an excellent factual record on this subject area. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. Extremly reputable organisation. Obviously those designated as racists, or their friends, are noisy regarding the classification by organisations such as the SPLC or the ADL, however such noise expected. The ADL is very reputable. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3/4, particularly when related to Israel or Zionism. Maybe an exception can be made to categorize it as option 2 when wholly unrelated to Israel or Zionism. The ADL's partisan stance on the war and its conflating of opposition to Israel with antisemitism, something that's caused quite a stir within the ADL with a number of high-profile resignations in protest of the direction their leader is taking the organization. They're not simply an objective academic watchdog organization, they are an activist organization and that includes explicitly pro-Israel activism. As others have mentioned, the organization now counts all protests supportive of Palestine as "antisemitic incidents."  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The last sentence is simply false. Here they explain what their criteria are. Only protests with certain slogans like “by all means necessary” and “from the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” were considered antisemitic. *You* may not consider them antisemitic but a lot of Jewish people do and so using such criteria is not an example of the lack of reliability. Alaexis¿question? 20:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      All pro-Palestinian protests feature "from the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free." Levivich (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, the logic here appears to be: "the ADL is right because a lot of Jewish people agree with it" – a rather peculiar bar for reliability that, no? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Only Palestinian protests where anti-Zionist slogans are used" is all Palestinian protests. Again, the conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism is at the heart of why the ADL is disreputable on this issue. "A lot of Jewish people" is not a source. A lot of Jewish people I know think the idea that anti-Zionism is antisemitism is itself extremely antisemitic as this carries with it the implication that Jewish people who oppose Israel are not "good Jews" or that they are "self-hating", an accusation they're frequently on the receiving end of. I share their view. But my anecdotal reference to unspecified members of a group who feel a certain way is no more an indicator of reliability or lack thereof than yours.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The use of the IHRA definition with all of it’s examples, is disputed but clearly not fringe (as it is adopted by governments and many organisations). Assuming that what you criticise does not go beyond IHRA, it can definitely be valid criticism, but it’s also clearly not impactful when it comes to reliability. FortunateSons (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe that it has been pointed out before that the already controversial IHRA appendix does not expressly make the conflation. It is merely sufficiently broad and ambiguous that it can be one interpretation. The ADL goes well beyond the IHRA appendix into full, open and unashamed conflation. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This 2 examples of antisemitism appear explicitly in the appendix to IHRA:
      Vegan416 (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So the first is incredibly ambiguous. What does it even mean? How can a state be racist? People, laws, ideologies and institutions can be racist, but a state is an inanimate abstract construct. People might label a state as racist rhetorically, but actually they mean one of these other things. And what has that got to do with self-determination? The labels above have little to nothing to do with self-determination except as a very convoluted corollary. As for the double standard malarkey, that has simply grown great wings of irony in the most recent conflict where the only apparent double standard is that Israel is held to almost no international legal standard by the international community. Are Western nations then antisemitic by inference by treating Israel with a preferential double standard? You can see why people call the definition unworkable. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The IHRA is not fringe, but it is very much controversial. If an organization was relying on the IHRA to categorize antisemitic incidents, we would have to attribute it any time they did that. However, the ADL's definition of antisemitism, as already mentioned, goes beyond simply saying that certain kinds of especially harsh criticism of Israel are antisemitic, and into saying that essentially all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. Loki (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That can be the case, but the issues disputed here are most likely covered even just by the IHRA. We should attribute statements where appropriate anyway, but the IHRA definition is (likely) the most common one, and there is no reason to attribute it more than any of the other ones. FortunateSons (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, in general (as in: with exceptions), the ADL makes a destination between criticism of specific government actions/ policies and the more extreme versions of antizionism in the literal sense (advocating for or justifying violence against Israelis, denying the right of Israel to exist, denying Jewish people the right to self-determination). While you can argue where the line between those is, as has happened with the second slogan and the relevant legal debate in Germany, saying that there isn’t a lot of the latter at many of the rallies would have to be substantiated rather well. FortunateSons (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To repeat myself, the IHRA is very much controversial. A definition of antisemitism based on it makes that organization's pronouncements regarding antisemitism similarly controversial.
      If a major paper said that the economy was going to crash based solely on the predictions of monetarism, it doesn't matter that monetarism is not fringe within economics for that pronouncement to be not reliable as a source for whether the economy is going to crash. Loki (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That’s would be true in you example, but a more accurate metaphor would be an economics paper based only on a liberal capitalist framework. While there is definitely criticism of liberal capitalism, it’s also the prevailing interpretation by (western) governments and organisations, similarly to IHRA. FortunateSons (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We also must recognize that ADL uses terms like "zionism", "denying Israel the right to exist", and "denying Jewish people the right to self-determination" in a fringe way. Everyone would agree that it would be antisemitic to call for the forcible expulsion of the Israeli people to bring about the destruction of Israel. But the ADL goes a step further by arguing that it would be "denying Israel the right to exist" or "denying the Jewish people the right of self-determination" to give the Palestinian people in the occupied territories the right to vote. The ADL argues that it denies Israel the right to exist, and is therefore by its definitions antisemitic, to support the establishment of a single democratic nation where all its inhabitants have equal rights and the ability to express themselves through democratic processes. That is stretching the limits of terms like "the right to exist" to argue that it is antisemitic to not prefer that Israel take the form of an ethnostate. That is not a workable definition. That's arguing that advocating for change is advocating for the destruction of Israel. Such a definition is not inherently implied by terms like "the right to exist." The IHRA definition has much more flexibility and can be interpreted in more than one way. While both definitions mention the right of self determination and the right for Israel to exist, only the ADL goes the extra mile by defining those terms to mean a very narrow interpretation.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, wow. By the arguments the ADL makes on that page former president of Israel from the Likud party Reuven Rivlin would be antisemitic. That's wild. Loki (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am afraid you completely misunderstand Rivlin's views. https://www.timesofisrael.com/rivlin-proposes-israeli-palestinian-confederation/ Vegan416 (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a relatively recent change and he's been on record multiple times before as supporting a single bi-national state, as is documented extensively in his article. Loki (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But you kind of missed that in his opinion this state will have only one army - the IDF. The Palestinians won't have an army. Vegan416 (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Vanilla Wizard, could you cite where they say that such views are antisemitic, and not just wrong? They seem to describe them as unpractical or incompatible with the founding purpose of Israel, but that is pretty close to general consensus. They are also very critical of those advocating for greater Israel with no voting right for Palestinians, so it seems to be a biased but generally accurate and non-fringe view.
      While I don’t fully subscribe to the arguments myself, arguing that a one-state solution could be incompatible with IHRA (unless agreed to voluntarily by Jewish people) is at least not implausible:
      1. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
      2. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
      It is rather hard to avoid both when arguing for a one-state solution without majority support from Israelis.
      Now, in the cited article, the ADL does not do that (but it’s possible they do elsewhere, where I would personally consider it wrong but non-fringe.) Instead, they make other moral and practical arguments, which are rather commonly made - there is a reason why a one-state solution is a somewhat niche view among both sides. FortunateSons (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For starters, in the article I linked to the ADL argues that proponents of a single-state solution are often nefarious actors dishonestly using advocacy for a democratic multinational state as a cover for their supposed real goal of destroying Israel.
      From the ADL:
      "While couching their arguments in terms of egalitarianism and justice, proponents of a bi-national state are predominantly harsh critics of Israel, and use this proposal as a vehicle to further their advocacy against an independent Jewish state."
      "the notion that Palestinians and Jews, who can’t even negotiate a two-state solution, could coexist in one happy state is so ludicrous that only the naive or the malicious would fall for it."
      This page does not use the term antisemitic directly, but based on the ADL's definitions of antisemitism and zionism, its description of advocates for a democratic binational state as "malicious" actors who oppose "an independent Jewish state" and "couch their arguments in egalitarianism and justice" to further their goal of a world without Israel very clearly shows that the ADL considers such advocates to be antisemites. If an antisemite is someone who does not want Israel to exist in its current form as a state consisting of, by, and for one ethnoreligious group, then someone who wants everyone in its claimed borders to have equal rights would be an antisemite. The fact that this ADL article goes at great lengths to describe proponents of such a solution as anti-Israel bad faith actors only furthers that this is their position. So yes, the ADL absolutely does do that.
      I can see how one could interpret this as meeting the "claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor", but I also think that's far from the only way to interpret it. I'd like to quote an excerpt from Michael Tarazi's 2004 New York Times op-ed to test against the definitions we're discussing.
      Example argument:
      "it is simply the recognition of the uncomfortable reality that Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories already function as a single state. They share the same aquifers, the same highway network, the same electricity grid and the same international borders" [...] [the binational solution] neither destroys the Jewish character of the Holy Land nor negates the Jewish historical and religious attachment (although it would destroy the superior status of Jews in that state). Rather, it affirms that the Holy Land has an equal Christian and Muslim character. For those who believe in equality, this is a good thing.
      I believe that under the IHRA definition, you could say that Tarazi's argument is simply egalitarian and far from antisemitic. This example argument does not call for the destruction of Israel, rather it argues that Israel is already de facto the one state, and therefore those who live under that state should all enjoy the same rights. By my reading of the IHRA definition, that's totally okay. But the ADL would strongly disagree.
      Now just to be clear, I'm not discussing the actual merits of any solution, that'd be way beyond the topic of the discussion. The point I'm making here is that the IHRA definition and the ADL definition are not one and the same. Under the IHRA definition, one could reasonably interpret it as allowing for a democratic Israel-Palestine to exist, while the ADL's definitions obviously define proponents of such a solution as antisemites. These are incompatible definitions. The IHRA definition is already contentious and should be attributed when used, the ADL's shouldn't be used period.
       Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate you taking the time, but you can’t synth your way into assuming that they would have taken the position if they haven’t. The ADL publishes significant amounts of material, if it is rarely or never said to be always antisemitic, that is likely not coincidental.
      The rest are common criticisms of the one-state-solution (OSS), where you can definitely argue their validity, but which are clearly non-fringe. My reading is that they clarify this so far specifically because not all advocates of a OSS are antisemitic, but neither of our readings is provable or of relevance.
      Regarding your quote, I would say both readings could be plausible (read: non-fringe). Having said that, the solution would end Israel as we know it and definitely destroy parts of it’s founding purpose, so it is clearly a highly controversial statement, even if I see no proof of it being pre se antisemitic. FortunateSons (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I do appreciate you taking the time to hear me out and giving thoughtful responses in a civil tone, even if we disagree. I can understand how my argument there would come off as too SYNTHY after rereading it, though I still don't agree that it is for the purpose of this discussion. In the quotes I provided, the ADL still characterizes proponents of the OSS as bad faith actors cloaking their secret real goal of a world with no Jewish state - that alone tells me that the ADL's stance on the OSS goes much too far to be comparable to the IHRA definition, so I don't think it's that SYNTHy for the purpose of this discussion to conclude that in the quotes provided, the ADL already all but called proponents of the OSS antisemites, especially when the things they accuse OSS advocates of being (malicious actors who really just oppose the existence of a Jewish state) are exactly what the ADL itself defines as being antisemitic.
    Now, if the question at hand were "should we write in Wikivoice in a mainspace article that the ADL calls OSS proponents antisemites?", the answer would be no, of course not, that would in fact be synthesis. But that is, of course, not the discussion we're having. We are simply looking at the ADL way of defining antisemitism versus the IHRA way of defining antisemitism, specifically as it relates to positions on Israel and Zionism. The whole "is the one state solution considered antisemitic?" side tangent started with the question of "how do terms like 'the destruction of Israel' / 'Israel's right to exist' / 'Right of self-determination of the Jewish people' get defined?" as it's one thing for two definitions to include those terms in definitions of antisemitism, but it's another thing for them to have the same definitions for those terms. The IHRA uses such language in its defining examples of antisemitism, but those terms are themselves in need of defining and the IHRA just leaves it open to interpretation. The ADL's statements on the OSS articulate what the ADL would consider to be an example of denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and according to them, Israelis and Arabs having equal rights in the same borders would be such an example. I think that alone demonstrates the broader point that the ADL definition and the IHRA definition are not one and the same.
    I think you'll agree that by now we've sufficiently beat this horse and I have nothing new to say that isn't just the same points rephrased, so I don't intend to add any further comments beyond this one. I only decided to write this reply because I think you made some interesting points that I wanted to respond to. If nothing else, I hope what I said made sense and wasn't just a bunch of incoherent ramblings. Thanks again for being one of the more level-headed editors I've disagreed with in this otherwise heated discussion. Have a good one,
     Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your kind words, I also greatly appreciate us having a polite and productive discussion despite our disagreement. :)
    I agree that the ADL characterises some opponents of the OSS as bad faith actors (IMO accurately), and I think we can both agree that it’s quite clear that they don’t say (and don’t indisputably mean) all are antisemitic. That isn’t undoubtedly (but is plausibly) in line with the IHRA definition, but even if it weren’t, that style of opposition to the OSS is (no matter what we think of it) clearly non-fringe, at least as far as relevant Jewish and Israeli circles go (and the relevant scientific communities, making it at worst a question of bias). I think we could both write full-length articles on this topic, but as we agree on most verifiable things and disagree on things which are a matter of interpretation, I agree we should leave the poor horse alone, it has been through enough. (In the literal sense, I don’t think either of us is being disruptive)
    Regarding it being a (hypothetical) fringe view if they called all proponents of the OSS antisemitic, I would probably say it’s “non-fringe but stupid”, but if being stupid in my personal opinion was a criteria for a reduction of reliability, we would run out of sources quite quickly.
    Having said that, I wanted to again express my gratitude for the thought-out and civil discourse, and cordially invite you to continue this tangent on either of our talk pages should you at some point be interested in having this discussion. FortunateSons (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 (with 2 consideration). I refer to my first comment in the top section as my general commentary on all items. It seems that there has been some debate as to the ADL's take on matters relating to anti-zionism and anti-semitism. However, that is obviously a matter of serious debate, as well as a plain matter of opinion, and should reasonably fall under the additional considerations already applied in the ADL's perennial sources listings. Echoing my previous sentiment, the only links to RS with issues with The ADL I see in this discussion are The Guardian and The New Republic, which each have opinion considerations in their listings, and dedicated editorial slants toward Israel-Palestine matters. I would need to see a strong consensus from RS publications citing ADL publications and data before giving priority to the majority of sources cited here. Mistamystery (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. The nature of the subject is such that the ADL is too politicised to be a useful source even outside incidents directly related to the Israel/Palestine conflict.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3: ADL is too politicised to be a useful source even outside incidents directly related to the Israel/Palestine conflict. having said that, the ADL is a prominent US advocacy group, whose attributed opinions have considerable weight and will often be included as such, but as a source to be rendered in WPVOICE, they should not generally be used. I find the question somwhat bizarre for several reasons. There is always a subjective element to whether any words or any action are anti-semetic (racist, mysogynistic etc) since making the assessment has to do both with assessing impact and motive and ADL exists primarily to highlight anti-semetism and increasingly as an advocate for Israel and its actions, so what neutrality should we even expect from them? They don't exist primarily to report, so their words and deeds have to be seen in that context. Is any advocacy group ultimately a RS for anything other than the positions they advocate for? Pincrete (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Part 3: hate symbol database

    What is the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League's database of hate symbols?

    Loki (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (ADL:hate symbols)

    • Option 2. The ADL's database of hate symbols is generally reliable but only for the narrow use case of identifying if a symbol is used by hate groups. Other background information on symbols in the database is not reliable because the ADL does not correct the background information in its entries even when clear factual errors are pointed out to it. Loki (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1/Option 2. Reliable for whether something is a hate symbol, additional considerations apply for the historical background of the hate symbol - generally, we should prefer sources focused on the historical background. BilledMammal (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 in the way described by Loki. RS source the database for basic facts (e.g. [80], [81], [82], etc.), therefore, we must accept the database as a reliable source for basic facts. Chetsford (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 in the sense that when we say e.g. Amnesty International is generally reliable, we're not necessarily saying it's reliable for some biomedical claim it makes in the course of its advocacy. Likewise the ADL is an authority on extremism, hate speech, etc. This list is not an ideal source for, say, the ancient history of a symbol before it was adopted by some extremist group, but can be used for the fact that it's been adopted by that extremist group (and how that group uses it). I.e. reliable for its area of expertise, which is the primary value of the hate symbols projects. In other words, what I said here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: Generally reliable. As per Rhododendrites. Vegan416 (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 at the end of the day ADL is a primary source with many controversies, any hate symbols data should be at least verified by secondary RS reporting on the matter. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a primary source for a claim such as "The ADL considers x a hate symbol". It's a secondary (or tertiary if using other secondary sources) source for any claims we might make about the symbol itself. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 3 A year ago I would have said Option 1 here but the poor standards of judgment the ADL has shown regarding Israeli violence in Palestine has weakened its reputation across the board. Attribution and avoidance of wiki-voice is required. Even for this. Simonm223 (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Revising my !vote based on further discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 within the area of specialty, Option 2 otherwise: the identification is generally without major issues and used by others, but the criticism regarding background errors and comparable issues was not adequately addressed, as per Rhododendrites. FortunateSons (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 or 3: The ADL has some clear inaccuracy on the fine detail of hate symbols – not least on their origins and symbology – but appears to be relied on as a source for the basic identification of symbols that have been used/misused by hate groups. For information on the symbols themselves, it should not be a source of first choice, with it seemingly conducting flawed primary research then presented in a database without any details on authorship or the referenced sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 Because of the issues with some of their commentary on certain symbols being inaccurate, as noted in the previous discussion. The more specific in detail and history they get, the more likely they are to introduce errors. So usage of their hate symbol database should be careful and, preferably, backed up by an additional separate source. SilverserenC 14:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 the database can be used to identify something as a hate symbol. It should not be used for information on the symbol’s history or deeper meaning. Dronebogus (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 Attribution seems best, since asserting that something is a hate symbol is different to stipulating the use of it by some persons or a group.Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 or 3 Given the discussion above, it is clear ADL does not have a reputation for honesty and integrity. The organisation's CEO has effectively identified Jewish Voice for Peace as an antisemitic hate group. I simply can't see how they can be trusted. AusLondonder (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 - Tbh I don't really care about this one, I find this issue to be rather silly. I mean, a symbol is a symbol, and it's trivially easy to identify or source when a hate group uses a particular symbol. It's WP:BLUESKY obvious that, for example, the crucifix is sometimes used as a hate speech symbol, e.g. when the KKK burns one on a Black person's front lawn. I don't need the ADL to tell me that. I don't need the ADL to tell me that the swastika is sometimes used as a hate speech symbol by, e.g., the Nazis and neo-Nazi groups. "Sometimes used as a hate speech symbol according to the ADL" is a stupid statement, IMO, because that's probably true for a huge amount of symbols, it doesn't really say anything. As has been pointed out, many numbers are used as hate speech symbols by hate groups. So what? More useful would be something like, "The KKK uses the crucifix" or "The crucifix has been appropriated as a symbol by some hate groups such as the KKK," but again, don't really need the ADL for that, as the sources about the hate group will make that point. The ADL's database is a convenient database for collecting and searching for symbols used in hate speech, but I'm not sure it's a very useful RS for Wikipedia for this, because there will be better RS available for notable hate groups. Because of ADL's unreliability with regard to Israel and antisemitism, and because it's a lobbying and advocacy group, I think "option 2" is the appropriate option for content outside of I/P or antisemitism, including what it has to say about symbols being used as hate speech (that don't involve Israel or antisemitism; for those, option 3 per my votes above). Levivich (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this issue matters more than you think it does, because "notable hate group" is a much much broader category than "hate group everyone has heard of". The Aryan Brotherhood prison gang is a notable hate group; can you identify their symbols? The Order of Nine Angles is a notable hate group; can you identify their symbols without clicking on that link? Loki (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What I mean is I can identify their symbols without needing the ADL; I can use sources about Aryan Brotherhood or about Nine Angles in order to identify their WP:MAJORASPECT symbols. ADL's Hate on Display database isn't a WP:BESTSOURCE for this. I think it's a tertiary source that compiles secondary sources. The articles don't cite their sources, or even describe their sources. They don't list authors or a journalistic policy. It's neither scholarship nor journalism. It's not even as reliable as an encyclopedia like Britannica or, well, Wikipedia (which at least in theory cites sources). It's basically an unattributed group blog. Arguably WP:EXPERTSPS if it can be shown that, today, ADL is considered an expert on hate speech (that might be a case that could be made). On consideration, I could be persuaded that it's EXPERTSPS on hate speech and hate symbols (so option 1) if someone were to post some recent scholarship citing it as an expert on these topics. Levivich (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. Some usability as a database of basic facts, where it sees significant WP:USEBYOTHERS and is quoted authoritatively (and where relatively few high-quality sources have cast doubt on it), but as an advocacy org it should generally be attributed anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 or option 4. As the individual who first brought this up, I'm surprised that some editors seem eager to look beyond the foundational errors and lack of attribution or editorial oversight from the ADL to give them some kind of honorary pass here: As someone with an actual background in this material, it's painfully obvious that the ADL has no idea what they're talking about, are absolutely not authorities on this matter (despite presenting themselves as such), and are not by any means a reliable source on this topic. They're not even trying. For example, the Wolfsangel as an "ancient runic symbol"? What? And all this nonsense about every number under the sun being a "hate symbol" because some tiny group somewhere may have used it somewhere at sometime, to where even "100%" is listed as a "hate symbol"? Alert your local grocery store. Meanwhile, the ADL does not have its finger on the pulse of the topic enough to even provide an entry for the now popular "Black Sun", an actual "hate symbol". It's hard to imagine any organization with the ADL's funding and a podium cobbling together a factually worse and more useless "hate symbol database". Again, and this is important to stress: who wrote this? Where and what are their sources? When, where, who? We get none of that. Does the author have any background whatsoever in identifying these topics and their history? The answer seems obvious to me. On Wikipedia, it's easy to instead use peer-reviewed sources from actual experts, where people actually have the slighest clue about what they're talking about and where we can—imagine this—identify authorship and sources. This is just F-grade garbage and simply unacceptable. We should absolutely not be 'just accepting' the ADL's word for these important topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree the information on symbology is murky at best, and should never be the first choice of source on such things anyway ... but the main purpose of the database appears to be to attribute the use of certain symbols to certain groups. For such cases, What's the problem with attributing such an association to the ADL? It's not clear that they're generally unreliable on the basic identification of hate group use cases. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think the ADL is even reliable for this anymore. They can't get even the most fundamental facts straight and we have no idea who is making these entries, there's zero chronology, and basically just no editorial oversight. We have to do better than using F-tier sources like this. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Bloodofox, while you are right that they misidentify the Wolfsangel as an ancient runic symbol, I don't think you've provided evidence for widespread error. It is absolutely the case that "100%" is used as a hate symbol in a some specific contexts; the ADL is very obviously not claiming that every time "100%" appears it is used in this way. While there are clearly better sources for the history of the Wolfsangel, ADL might actually be the best source on the far right's uses of numbers. Similarly, of course peer-reviewed scholarly content is better than sources without named authors, but not listing sources or naming authors is not always an index of unreliability; for a database produced by a museum or scholarly organisation or for a standard tertiary source used in
      educational contexts it's extremely common not to list sources or name authors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, again, and this is crucial, we need to know who wrote this. What are their credentials? And why should we just believe the ADL, given they provide zero sources and seem to have no editorial standards at all? We get no information here about authorship, not even a contributor list. It is typical to list authorship, even if with just general credits, in databases and handbooks, because when they're authoritative they involve experts. Otherwise why believe what they have to say, especially without any kind of references?
    The ADL's database was most likely just put together by a contractor or two years ago: A non-expert, most likely a single or more than one contractor with no formal or even notable background in the topic and no tools beyond a few dated books and a Google search (like old versions of Wikipedia articles). That's the only way to explain the manifold errors throughout this poor showing of a database.
    And yes, the errors are widespread and similarly unacceptable. I could go entry after entry, especially on historic topics. It'd be a sea of red ink. For example, each one of the rune entries has some ridiculous error that even an introductory runology handbook would resolve. A quick look reveals that the ADL's "life rune" entry provides butchered reconstructions of Elder Futhark names like "algis" (which should obviously be *algiz—with a -Z, the asterisk indicates a linguistic reconstruction) alongside the name "life rune". At no point do they alert the reader that the concept of the "life rune" (as opposed to the historic *algiz) is in fact not ancient but rather an early 20th century invented in völkisch circles, used officialy by Nazi Germany, and then later embraced in neo-Nazi circles. They instead imply this was "appropriated", as if it is just another item from the historic record. Wrong. There's a whole essay one could write about how bad the ADL's entry for even the most mainstream "hate" symbols, like the SS logo, is (for one, The SS logo did not come directly from Elder Futhark *sowilo but once again völkisch interpretations developing from von List's Armanen futhark, which is why they're typically called Sig 'victory' runes).
    And again, while the ADL is asleep at the wheel on this topic, content to present bad 'research' on symbols from the late 90s, many other new symbols have popped up in common use, like the so-called Black Sun/Schwarze Sonne, which we now cover very well here on Wikipedia (no thanks to the ADL, whose poor coverage on the topic actually wasted a lot of our time there). While they've probably plundered some handbook on numbers (without attribution), they don't listen other important neo-Nazi symbols, like the so-called Irminsul of Wilhelm Teudt (but we do cover this). They also seem to be pretty averse to Christian nationalism symbols: there's a huge list they're missing.
    Now if the ADL had an expert on staff, we wouldn't be having any of this discussion at all. Again, we have to do better than this. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The database, which is frequently updated but obviously by definition incomplete, says it is produced by ADL's Center on Extremism, which in turn describes itself as employing "a team of experts, analysts, and investigators" (i.e. it's a collective endeavour). Missing entries don't invalidate it; the database itself asks "Are we missing something?" and invites submissions.
    The only error you point out re the "life rune" is the transliteration of z as s; ADL does not claim the "life" meaning is ancient (they use the term "so-called" and give the German original). Your interpretation of what they "imply" is beyond what is in the text. Nobody would use this database as a source on its ancient meanings; there's nothing inaccurate in how they report its contemporary usage by hate groups. Similarly, they don't claim the SS symbol comes "directly from Elder Futhark *sowilo"; they say "The SS symbol is derived from the "sowilo" or "sun" rune, a character in the pre-Roman runic alphabet associated with the "s" sound." Again, obviously we would prefer a scholarly source for the ancient history of its runic antecedents, but the ADL database is an excellent source for its contemporary usage by hate groups. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a "team of experts" they don't list (!) in a database riddled with basic errors. Sounds legit. No names, no authorship, no credentials. No dates, no chronology, no sources. "Experts" who clearly don't know the history of the symbols they're writing about. Again, you're arguing that we just take the ADL's word for whatever they say, and yet if they can't get the history of a symbol right, you expect that they're getting the rest right?
    The slop the ADL is serving up as an entry on the 'life rune' (see how quickly I informed you of the term's actual history) is unacceptable and you are at this point making excuses for their F-grade fumbling with the historic record. You're saying that we should look the other way at the many errors in these entries related to the historic record and just believe what they say otherwise.
    Should I go start listing more errors? At this point I'm doing the ADL's work for it. Any decent database on the "life rune" will explain where the phrase comes from and how it is was invented in early 20th century völkisch circles. Instead they just slap it next to bungled attempts at presenting reconstructions (from who knows where) as if it were just another historic name. It's not and that's important. The same goes with the SS logo. When discussing the SS logo, it is important to know that the SS logo differs in origin and use from the historic Elder Futhark S-rune and is instead directly from völkisch author Guido von List's 'revealed' Armanen runes as published in the early 20th century. This is supposed to be an authoritative database from experts but instead it reads like a half-baked contractor job.
    You don't have to make excuses for the ADL. They could get this right at any time by bringing in experts. Just find a source written by actual experts and use that instead. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It feels like you expect a database of contemporary Hate symbols to be a scholarly compendium of their historical origins. You haven’t presented any evidence that the database is inaccurate for what it’s used for: describing how contemporary hate groups use these symbols. I’ll stop commenting on this thread now as any close has more than enough material to make their own judgement. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's obvious that a.) neither you nor I know who wrote these terrible entries and b.) that they're riddled with errors that any specialist (or anyone who has attended an introductory course on these topics) would immediately detect. If you choose to believe what's in those comedically bad database entries, ancient or modern, that's on you, but they're definitely not suited for English Wikipedia or any other project where reliability and authorship matters. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • And all this nonsense about every number under the sun being a "hate symbol" because some tiny group somewhere may have used it somewhere at sometime, to where even "100%" is listed as a "hate symbol? Alert your local grocery store." Given that the ADL explicitly says most uses of this symbol are not, in fact, white supremacist in nature this is a pretty disingenuous objection. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And we should believe the ADL that "100%" is a notable "hate symbol" why? Did an expert write this entry? If so, who is that expert? Was it a contractor with Google? When did this become a symbol of notability? Is it still? When was this entry even written? We get absolutely no authorship information and 'just trust the ADL' (or their contractor/s!) simply isn't enough, especially given fundamental errors throughout entries that an authorative body like the ADL should know very well. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is even basic accuracy. The ADL's database is riddled with errors and lacks any kind of attribution beyond just "ADL". There's nothing reliable about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    • I'm merging the three discussion sections that would normally go here because these RFCs are all closely connected. Loki (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to BilledMammal's response to my !vote on Section 1: (1) I see no evidence of RS saying SJP is a front for Hamas; (2) that's not how I read the plain language of the article; (3) correct, but this is part of a pattern of wild divergences in position that renders them inconsistent and, therefore, unreliable; (4) that's not how I read the plain language of the article. Chetsford (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding (1) I don't see the ADL saying SJP is a front for Hamas either, just that they provided "material support". Regarding (2) and (4), to simplify this can you quote the sections that you interpret as the sources saying that ADL is pushing falsehoods? Regarding (3), I would need to see more of a pattern, rather than an isolated incident, and preferably in regards to matters of fact rather instead of opinion, before I can comment further on that. BilledMammal (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • On deprecating a single topic area. This RfC deals with three distinct topic areas. Potentially deprecating the source for a single topic would present editorial difficulties, as Loki has observed. That said, because we have no policy or guideline that precludes this, I'm inclined to believe this remains a valid option and the method we would use to apply it would have to be sorted out after the fact if it landed on that, potentially through further discussion. Chetsford (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm still concerned about this because the concrete meaning of a deprecation per WP:DEPS is:
      1. The source is generally unreliable.
      2. New users adding the source are reverted by bot.
      3. Any user attempting to add the source is warned not to.
      Part 1 can clearly be implemented for a single topic area but is no different from Option 3. Parts 2 and 3 do not seem to me to be reasonably possible to implement per topic area. So either it's deprecated for all topic areas, or it's just a pointed way of voting generally unreliable. Loki (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed, particularly with the last point. FortunateSons (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not keen on moving to deprecation without going through generally unreliable first, if we want to consider that separately following this RFC, we could do that. Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As per previous experience any RFC for deprecation will likely end up being reviewed, especially in this area. So if anyone is advocating for deprecation they need to be making a very strong argument.
      There seems to be a general misunderstanding that its the next step up from generally unreliable, but deprecation goes well beyond that. It's for sources that are not only generally unreliable but completely untrustworthy (for instance publishing lies, losing a court case about those lies, and then deliberately covering up the fact that the lies had ever been published, and then lying about doing so). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • A source can't logically be completely untrustworthy (as opposed to merely unreliable) on a single topic. Any determination that a source is completely untrustworthy on any given topic should presume to it being untrustworthy on all topics. Since the standard for deprecation is generally linked to a penchant for dishonesty versus mere incompetence, it would be incoherent to posit that we could sometimes trust a habitual liar. Chetsford (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It would be a somewhat confused situation, but my comment was just to try and stop the discussion going off course and to point out that deprecation isn't "generally unreliable++". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is kinda, in the sense of RFC options on a scale of 1 to 4, at any rate, worse than unreliable. Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I should have said "isn't just 'generally unreliable++'". The 1-4 scale should maybe be changed so deprecation appears differently, 1-3 +D maybe. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it’s a binary choice between deprecation of ADL as a whole and no depreciation whatsoever, I support depreciation of ADL. The quality of their information ranges from bad (hate symbols) to worse (antisemitism) to outright propaganda and disinformation (I/P). If ADL was (nominally) representing any other group besides Jews it would be considered a far-right disinformation campaign. Nothing is lost by saying “avoid this”, and nothing is gained from “broken clocks are right twice a day”. Dronebogus (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would concur here. While the ADL website has been a convenient source for hate symbols and general information on hate groups it is not a critical one for this, nor, as has been pointed out, even one with particularly academic methodology for inclusion. With its movement toward being an open advocacy / lobby group for Israel it is increasingly inappropriate for other uses. If we have to deprecate the whole thing, let's deprecate the whole thing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Antisemitism

    I wanted to expand a bit on why I think that the arguments used by editors !voting for Option 3/4 are not good. Most of the arguments are based on the sources criticising their definition of antisemitism, such as this article in the Nation

    The author evidently doesn't consider "simple protests" by Students for Justice in Palestine to be antisemitic. However this is his opinion. As an example, From the river to the sea slogan that was likely chanted during those SJP protests is widely perceived to call for the destruction of the world's only Jewish state, and hence antisemitic. Of course, others do not consider it antisemitic, and it's fine, we should describe all viewpoints. The problem with the !votes based on these sources is that they talk about the "veracity" or "unreliability" of antisemitism claim as if there is one true definition of antisemitism. Alaexis¿question? 12:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    “Likely” chanted? And you’re complaining about verifiably? Dronebogus (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think that they chanted "Two-state solution"? On a more serious note, here you can find them talking about the criteria Krain said the ADL counted any demonstration featuring pro-Palestinian chants such as “globalize the intifada, “by all means necessary,” “Zionism is terrorism,” and “from the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free.” Alaexis¿question? 06:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So ... Calling for a global uprising against injustice; calling out what is arguably a duck as being a duck; and calling for freedom. Not sure I get the part where any of that is anything but political. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iskandar323 Referring to the Jewish nation's right of self-determination as "terrorism" is definitely antisemitism according to the working definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and also according to common sense. Vegan416 (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vegan416: I guess it's good that no one said that then. Zionism is not the "right to self-determination"; it is a political ideology – you'll note the separate pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Zionism is the expression of the Jewish nation's right to self-determination. That is obvious. Vegan416 (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's a political expression. And it's freedom of speech to critique political expressions quite freely. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is not about of free speech at all. The ADL is not trying to have the US government throw people into jail for saying anti-Zionist things, by equating them with antisemitism. Since in the US even undisputed antisemitic speech is also protected by the First Amendment (as long as it's not a direct incitement for violence). It is a genuine debate about what is the definition of antisemitism. And whether you personally like it or not most people agree that saying that the Jewish nation doesn't have the right for self-determination and its expression, is antisemitism. Vegan416 (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already addressed this muddled conflation of Zionism, a political ideology, and the conceptual right to self-determination. But that's not the topic. Pertinently, you are not in a position to define what "most people agree", let alone determine that the ADL somehow represents what most people agree, with regards to anti-Zionism: you haven't provided RS evidence for any of this. You are assuming that the ADL's position falls within the mainstream, but you haven't actually demonstrated that. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know the validity of the statement "most people agree", but let's assume it's accurate for the sake of argument. In that case, wouldn't it be more precise to say that saying that the Jewish nation doesn't have the right for self-determination is about 74% antisemitic, 20% anti-Arab, etc. based on the demographics? Just putting this radical idea out there in the hopes that the ADL will pick it up and run with it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget the Druze, who in Israel don't like to be called Arab either. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly a complex and interesting question. For example, what happens if you apply the question to a smaller area? Instead of saying the entire Jewish state doesn't have the right to exist, someone says that a predominantly Jewish settlement that is half in Israel and half across the Green Line does not have the right to exist? Is that 100%, 50% or 0% antisemitic? Sentiment analysis is hard. Good luck to people trying compress language into categories. To their credit, at least the ADL seem to take the "it depends, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't" approach. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that this is one of the cases where the old 3D definition is actually superior to some of the more modern ones, despite the associated issues, making the answer to your question 0%. FortunateSons (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What has that to do with ADL screwing up on antisemitism? Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether IHRA (or other modern definitions) is a fringe definition to use. I believe this not be the case, but this is one of the cases where another is clearer FortunateSons (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ADL takes the already controversial IHRA and expands its already undue protection of Israel even further by specifically equating AZ = AS, that's fringe in my view. Selfstudier (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is broadly cited, reported and also used by multiple institutions and governments, I wouldn’t consider it fringe. FortunateSons (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's "it"? IHRA? It's controversial, add AZ = AS and its fringe. Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is IHRA, sorry for being vague.
    Every definition of Antisemitism is controversial, and IHRA appears to be one of the most broadly used ones.
    AZ being partially AS, IHRA covering all or most of AS and combing both is not unusual if you are going to collect all antisemitism, particularly as some AZ (and related actions) are covered by IHRA. And even if it were unusual, it’s far from fringe. FortunateSons (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who else does it besides the ADL? Selfstudier (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Use IHRA or describe some AZ as AS? The aggregation is one of the significant things where the ADL is premier and the reason they are broadly cited, particularly by media RS. FortunateSons (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/has-the-term-antisemitism-been-overused-or-overblown-beyond-usefulness/ Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to show discourse, not really an indication of being fringe, unless I am missing a specific part? FortunateSons (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Ury, but the fact he is pushing against a prevalent, possibly even dominant, view shows that the view he’s pushing against is not “fringe”. Some 43 countries have adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Hundreds of regional and local governments have also adopted the resolution, including 33 states in the US. Unlike Miron and Ury, most mainstream American Jewish leaders — including President Joe Biden’s antisemitism czar, Deborah Lipstadt — support the IHRA definition. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope I am replying to the correct comment- this thread is very hard to read in mobile at this point - but, yes, Wikipedia does lend undue space to Trump's nonsensical statements. That doesn't mean we should do the same for the ADL's nonsensical statements regarding post October 7 antisemitism. If Wikipedia needs to speak to these claims we should handle it like we do climate change denial. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Antisemitism and Zionism: The Internal Operations of the IHRA Definition Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A biased and uncited article describing broad use is also not really an indication of it being fringe, merely controversial, which I (and most reasonable people) don’t dispute. FortunateSons (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would actually add to @FortunateSons words that this article actually proves the opposite of fringe. Even Neve who is very much against this definition is forced to admit that it gained huge acceptance. Even in the academia "In the UK alone, three-fourths of all universities have taken it on board". Thanks for proving my thesis for me :-) Vegan416 (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Selfstudier The view that AZ=AS (under certain conditions) is definitely not fringe. In the general public it enjoys a huge support. Definitely in the US where the ADL operates. This is evidenced by a landslide majority of 70% who voted for it in the house, against only 3% who voted against it. You may of course be dismissive of the hoi polloi, and say that only the opinions of scholars count. But the truth is that you cannot prove that for the academic world either. You gave no proof whatsoever that the view AZ=AS in considered fringe even in the scholarly world. The fact that some scholars object to AZ=AS doesn't make it fringe. To make it fringe you have to show that there is a consensus in the scholarly world that AZ is not AS, i.e. that the majority of scholars think that AZ is not AS. Nobody has shown that here. To sum up. If you want to declare it fringe and disqualify a source based on this then the onus of proof is on you, and so far you failed to do that. Vegan416 (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said AZ = AS is fringe, I said IHRA + AZ = AS is fringe and I said that is my view. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how IHRA+AZ=AS is different from AZ=AS. And if you admit this is just your personal view then this is clearly not a good enough argument... Anyway I think we have taken too much space on this. If you want to continue this particular discussion come to my talk page. If not then bye for now. Vegan416 (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That depends on what you consider the line between legitimate and protected political speech and illegal violation of hate speech laws, which varies depending on the country. Arguing that People of Color should not be allowed to vote due to their race/ethnicity is also a criticism of liberal and egalitarian political values and expression, and could also be banned depending on your location. FortunateSons (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also nothing to do with subject at hand. Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does if some people are arguing that antizionism is generally or always not antisemitism. FortunateSons (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be, might not, ADL says it is, that's fringe. Selfstudier (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As cited elsewhere, it generally doesn’t. It says that some is, a view that is not fringe. FortunateSons (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They do IHRA + AZ=AS, that's like everything, fringe. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A expansion of IHRA to account for relevant and debated is not fringe unless you show it is, particularly if in line with the social and political discourse. FortunateSons (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even going along with the dubious assertion that the slogan in question was a specific call for the destruction of a state (as opposed to a call for freedom, as the chant actually goes), the religious characterisation of Israel cannot be directly inferred to be the motivation behind such a call. Indeed, when the state in question is a racist, apartheid and now genocidal one, there are rather a plethora of secular, moral reasons that one could imagine being invoked. The religious profession of a mass murderer is hardly relevant to the question of whether or not to condemn them. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem with ADL is that it has expanded advocacy into activism in the Israel/IP area, even to the extent of bashing Jewish orgs that are sympathetic to the Palestinians. Here is Greenblatt ramping up the rubbish 40 beheaded babies claim and then in an interview with MSNBC says first that the head of Hamas called for a "global day of Jihad" (he didn't) and then declared that “anti Zionism is genocide." (never mind just antisemitic). In fact the whole interview is worth a listen, if that's what the ADL is espousing, well...Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That’s not ADL. That’s a tweet from Greenblatt’s personal account. We don’t need every ephemeral personal comment by the CEO to be true for a source itself to be reliable. Material in their reports goes through an editorial process in the way this individual’s kneejerk response to an emotional situation doesn’t. Has the ADL itself published the 40 beheaded babies claim? BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there is an issue in this RfC of different interpretations of Loki’s original question 2 of whether ADL is reliable “regarding antisemitism”. I took this to mean can we generally assume ADL’s factual claims are accurate in the topic area of antisemitism. Other editors (most of those arguing for option 3?) took it to mean should we call something antisemitic on the basis of ADL calling it antisemitic. I would agree with these editors that we shouldn’t, while still believing (on the basis of use by others and no presented examples of factual inaccuracy relating to antisemitism) that the ADL is a reliable source for facts in this topic area. Have I misread other editors’ interpretations? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "According to the ADL, Jewish Voice for Peace has engaged in antisemitism," and "according to the ADL, antisemitism has risen 10,000% since October 7" are two sentences that should not appear in Wikipedia, and that's why I vote 3 and not 2. If that makes sense? I do not agree with you that there is a distinction between "calling something antisemitic" and "factual accuracy." If they do things like call BDS antisemitic, then they are unreliable, about anything. Too partisan to be trusted. Levivich (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich I think that there is in fact a strong case that the JVP had indeed engaged in antisemitism or at least bordering on it. This opinion is not just the ADL position, but also appears in these RS:
    In a book published in Indiana University Press: https://books.google.co.il/books?id=rEJFEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA114&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
    In HaAretz: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2017-07-10/ty-article/has-jewish-voice-for-peace-crossed-the-line-into-anti-semitism/0000017f-e485-d38f-a57f-e6d7d4da0000
    In The Forward: https://forward.com/opinion/391783/jvps-anti-semitic-obsession-with-jewish-power/
    In NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/14/opinion/college-israel-anti-semitism.html
    Also try to look open mindedly at the evidence presented by the ADL here:
    https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/jewish-voice-peace-jvp-what-you-need-know
    I agree that it might be farfetched to write in wikivoice "Jewish Voice for Peace has engaged in antisemitism" with a reference to ADL, but when it is attributed such as "According to the ADL, Jewish Voice for Peace has engaged in antisemitism," it looks fine. Or you can even make it like this for good measure: "According to the ADL's opinion, Jewish Voice for Peace has engaged in antisemitism". But there is no basis and no need to declare it unreliable on the issue of antisemitism. Vegan416 (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think it's a good use of this noticeboard to argue over whether JVP is antisemitic. It's really not the question at hand.
    I would say that the question of whether we say "According to the ADL, Jewish Voice for Peace has engaged in antisemitism" and "according to the ADL, antisemitism has risen 10,000% since October 7" are not questions of reliability, but questions of due weight. I mean Donald Trump told endless lies, but we wouldn't remove his comments from our articles for that reason. If multiple RSs are reporting what ADL says, that's going to be noteworthy in some articles.
    Reliability questions are whether we can say "David Duke attended the rally" or "'From the river to the sea' was chanted at the rally" with a footnote to an ADL report. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If other RSes report what ADL says then we'd cite those other RSes. Same with anything else. But that doesn't mean we cite ADL directly.
    I don't think we'd ever cite ADL for "so and so attended a rally" or "x was chanted at the rally" because ADL doesn't report on stuff like that. They're not journalism. We'd cite journalism for those kinds of facts. Levivich (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To use a concrete example: I don't think we should cite this ADL page [83] for "many anti-Israel activists flocked to rallies across the United States at which speakers and attendees openly celebrated the brutal attacks" or for what it says about JVP ("JVP’s most inflammatory ideas can help give rise to antisemitism") or anything else in that report. Because it's not reliable for I/P or antisemitism (because of its partisan bias), I don't think it's reliable for saying what anti-Israel activists did or said. Also note this is labeled "blog" and has no byline. I don't see any masthead on the ADL website or any journalism ethics policy. It has none of the indicators of reliability that journalism has (bylines, masthead, editorial board, ethics policy). I don't think we should cite that page for anything. Levivich (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not just JVP, it is also BDS "The ADL did not count resolutions calling for a boycott of Israel as antisemitic," the report said, "because they do not target individuals. However, these are antisemitic and contribute to the pressures faced by Jews on campus." (Tchah!). Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ADL is perfectly aware that the Palestinian slogan "From the river to the sea" corresponds exactly to a core article in the Likud party's foundational charter:-

    The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable… therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

    Since 1977 that has remained on its platform and Likud has been the dominant governing party over the last 45 or so years. So the ADL or whoever, in-citing the Palestinian version as 'antisemitic' is deliberately obscuring the fact that Likud, by that definition, would be 'antisemitic', in identical terms. Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection at all to describing those who support "greater Israel", like some of the Israeli right wing, as anti-Palestinians. But of course it would be wrong to call them antisemitic, as this term in unique to being against Jews. And you can check that in any English dictionary. Vegan416 (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't chip in if you have failed to grasp the point (irony in a logical inference taking the form of an hypothetical).Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "From the river to the sea" is not, in fact, in the Likud platform, Nishidani. You can literally find all their platforms online - here's one from 1999, no mention of that wording. It was in the original platform, but that specific wording is not used now. Likud is fairly extreme enough, so there's no need to mislead about what their platform actually is. Toa Nidhiki05 13:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It may no longer be explicit in their platform but that is what successive Israeli governments actually aspire to, It’s time to Confront Israel’s Version of "From the River to the Sea" Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting aside a slanted opinion piece, "from the river to the sea" is clearly controversial because of its use by actual terrorist groups that seek a genuine ethnic cleansing of all Jews in the region. Most rationally-minded people recognize the issue with one side claiming all of the territory. Toa Nidhiki05 13:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'slanted opinion' comes from one of the foremost scholars of the conflict, who unfortunately happens to be Palestinian. I have struck out the error, as you indicate, in asserting likud still has it on its platform. The point is, that Likud has no need for it to be on its platform, since it passed in 2018 the same principle in its Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
    • Basic Principles
    • 1. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.
    • 2. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious, and historical right to self-determination.
    • 3. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.
    The slight legal equivocation here between State of Israel and the (Greater) Land of Israel was clarified by the present government in its programme, when it took power.I.e.

    The Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop the settlement of all parts of the Land of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan and Judea and Samaria. Carrie Keller-Lynn, Michael Bachner, Judicial reform, boosting Jewish identity: The new coalition’s policy guidelines The Times of Israel 28 December 2022

    In plain man's language, the Jewish people are the only people in the world who have an exclusive right to all of the land between the Jordan and the sea. So waffling around the obvious is smoke in the eyes. It's useless trying to justify, by the jejune 'terrorist' use of it card, the distortions of the ADL or anyone else who fudge the obvious correlation between the positively championed policy of the government enshrined in a recent basic law, and the negatively spun slogan used by pro-Palestinian demonstrators. That is part of the Orwellian politics of language abuse and conceptual obfuscation instinct in the discursive gamesmanship of this area.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this actually matters to the phrase in question, which is undeniably and unequivocally connected with terrorist groups. This is why the ADL regards it as antisemitic and it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to understand that. You're not going to get any disagreement from me that claiming the entire region for your specific ethnic group is wrong. Toa Nidhiki05 14:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not quite accurate to say that the ADL regards it as antisemitic *because* it is "undeniably and unequivocally connected with terrorist groups". They regard it as antisemitic because they say it denies "the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland", here for example. I assume if it was not connected to terrorist groups they would arrive at the same conclusion. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would take a degree in hasbaraology to understand that.Selfstudier (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to strike that yourself. FortunateSons (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Read From the river to the sea, no need to reinvent the wheel here. Selfstudier (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "[...] the phrase in question, which is undeniably and unequivocally connected with terrorist groups. This is why the ADL regards it as antisemitic and it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to understand that."
    I'm sorry but this is nonesense. This whole debate is ridiculous as the bare phrase "from the river to the sea" is in no way antisemitic by itself. We should not need to be having this "debate".
    Also, please everyone in this conversation stop with the excessive arguing and WP:Bludgeoning. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Words have meaning, and phrases have meaning. You're right, the random string of words "from the river to the sea" has no inherent meaning, nor does "Christ is king" or "it's ok to be white". However, words have meaning in context - "Christ is king" is used on Twitter to harass Jews and Muslims, "it's ok to be white" is coded language used by white supremacists, and "from the river to the sea" is used by terrorist groups as their end goal of a Jew-free levant. There may be contexts where using any of these sets of word are not racist, but the ADL - understandably - regards phrases heavily tied to racist groups as being, well, racist. And saying "well, Likud said it too in the 70s" doesn't change that, because Likud could (quite reasonably) be also seen as racist, and if radical Israeli groups started to use the phrase, too, they'd likely face stark condemnation. Toa Nidhiki05 14:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is right-wing, pro-Israeli nonsense that "from the river to the sea" is somehow linked to "terror groups". Which groups exactly? And what on earth? Anyone with eyeballs and common sense is perfectly well aware that tens of thousand of peaceful protesters have routinely turned out over the past six months while using that phrase to call for a "free Palestine", which here, as all know, means freedom in an extremely classic sense: liberation from an oppresssive (here apartheid) regime. The vast majority of the usage is in such a peaceful context that it couldn't be further from terrorism. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nishidani As a matter of fact the ADL had accused the Israeli police minister Ben-Gvir of racism.https://www.timesofisrael.com/ben-gvir-adl-trade-barbs-over-jewish-racism-section-in-annual-antisemitism-report/ Vegan416 (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliable sources using ADL

    Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, how accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. In fact ADL data is widely used by RS

    1. The Wall Street Journal. The numbers are attributed, there is no criticism of their methodology.
    2. The New York Times. The numbers are attributed, there is no criticism of their methodology.
    3. The Guardian. The numbers are attributed, there is no criticism of their methodology.
    4. Le Monde. The numbers are attributed, there is no criticism of their methodology.
    5. Philadelphia Inquirer. The numbers are attributed and there is some criticism of the approach by The Philly Palestine organisation.

    So it's clear that RS do not treat ADL numbers as unreliable and if we deprecate ADL we'd be fail to follow our RS guidelines. Alaexis¿question? 13:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don’t think a bunch of sources, no matter how reliable, uncritically repeating a single report is a good measure of general reliability. Dronebogus (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dronebogus Your personal opinion on this doesn't matter. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:USEBYOTHERS. It means precisely what @Alaexis said here, namely that the fact that undisputable reliable sources uncritically repeat claims by source X, confers some reliability on source X in and of itself. Vegan416 (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's uncritical in the sense of the news outlets neither praise nor bemoan the ADL as a source. It's not really news either. All the pieces are just churnalistic regurgitations of the findings of the ADL (almost certainly from a press release). The pieces just say: the ADL said 'this', without conveying any real sense of the outlets' trust in the ADL as a source whatsoever beyond acknowledging its basic existence as an organisation that draws up tallies of stuff. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these uses are attributed to the ADL, so while it's not zero evidence of reliability, it's also not strong evidence. Loki (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Loki Your argument here is strange. The whole WP:USEBYOTHERS policy with regard to usage by high reliability newspapers is talking about cases where claims are attributed to another source. How else would you know that high reliability newspaper is citing a specific source, if it doesn't attribute it??? Newspaper don't carry footnotes like scholarly articles. Vegan416 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that ADL is a good source, with attribution, on statistics on antisemitic incidents. None of this has to do with ADL's pro-Israel advocacy though? VR (Please ping on reply) 22:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    response in your talk page. Vegan416 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding several new citations of ADL statements about antisemitism that were cited uncritically by reliable newspaper sites in the last few days since @Alaexis published his list on April 9:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/04/11/adl-antisemitism-report-card-gives-top-schools-failing-grades/73294604007/

    https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/11/business/adl-antisemitism-report-card/index.html

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/harvard-dozen-schools-receive-grade-adls-campus-antisemitism-report-ca-rcna147346

    https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4587901-harvard-tufts-mit-failing-grades-adl-campus-antisemitism/ Vegan416 (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Scholarly citations of ADL publications since 2020 from JSTOR

    These were found by simply putting "anti defamation league" in JSTOR search box and limiting the search to start in 2020. This yielded 164 results. To determine the relevancy of each result and its context I had to look inside the articles. This is a time-consuming process, so I did it so far for only a small number of results. I might continue with it in the following days, if required, and if time permits, but even this small collection proves that there are quite a few scholars who view the ADL as a reliable source even for scholarly work. This is relevant to the reliability question because of WP:USEBYOTHERS.

    2024:

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep58112.11? cited about antisemitism (including in the Israel-Palestine context)

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep58195.10? cited about antisemitism

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/48756310? cited about extreme right and antisemitism

    2023:

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep53058.6? cited on hate crimes

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv34h08d2.7? cited about racism

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/27255595? cited about extremism in general

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/48707918? cited about extreme right

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.11442022.9? cited about extreme right

    2022:

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/48669297? cited about racism in the middle east

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/27292094? cited about antisemitism

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2vm3bb6.13? cited about antisemitism in Europe

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/27185090? cited about extremism in general

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/27185088? cited about extremism in general

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/27185089? (and several more articles on the same subject that I'm too lazy to copy now) cited about extreme right

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/27185099? mentioned as a source on on Anti-Government Extremism

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/48722479? (and several more articles on the same subject that I'm too lazy to copy now) cited about hate crimes

    2021:

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/27040075? PNAS article cites ADL on global antisemitism

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/26979985? cited about extremism in general — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegan416 (talk • contribs)

    No idea what these are, clicking on the links seems to bring up random texts eg the first one for 2024 brings up "Closing Civic Space in the United States: Connecting the Dots, Changing the Trajectory"? Second one brings up "Chapter 3: Patterns of AGE across Countries" so I didn't bother reading any more after that, you need proper citations if we are to take this seriously. Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The JSTOR interface contains a "cite" button. If you click on it, it supplies you with the proper citation of the source. For example for the first 3 sources you will get these:
    Kleinfeld, Rachel. “Notes.” Closing Civic Space in the United States: Connecting the Dots, Changing the Trajectory, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2024, pp. 31–40
    Molas, Bàrbara, et al. “Patterns of AGE across Countries.” Anti-Government Threats and Their Transnational Connections, International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, 2024, pp. 18–28.
    Pantucci, Raffaello, and Kalicharan Veera Singam. “Extreme Right-Wing in the West.” Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses, vol. 16, no. 1, 2024, pp. 106–11
    I'm sure you can manage to do it on your own for the other references. Vegan416 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No thanks, these are obviously just passing references. Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter if they're passing or not. Vegan416 is trying to establish reputation for reliability based on use by others, not notability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it does matter. The way in which a source is used matters, not just the fact that they're being cited. If a source is cited with attribution to illustrate its own opinion, or simply to establish that a high-profile advocacy org said X, that doesn't necessarily imply any reliability at all; and if a source is cited in passing for uncontroversial or less-important things, that isn't as significant as someone using it for the crux of their argument. The broader way a source is used is important because we're trying to answer the question of "is it treated like it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?" But more generally I feel that WP:USEBYOTHERS, especially when it's just a passing citation like this, is a weaker indicator of reliability or unreliability than actual coverage; use by others can only roughly imply reliability, whereas sources that overtly describe something as unreliable are more clear-cut. --Aquillion (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. It's the same general principle as the trivial versus significant coverage concept in deletion discussions, i.e. about quality, not quantity. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's the whole idea of scholarly citations! Most scholarly articles do not rely on just one source but rather cite from many different sources which they regard to be reliable. Haven't you got any academic background? Vegan416 (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know how to display a cite properly if that helps. Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not relevant. What do you think WP:USEBYOTHERS means? That we should only considers highly reliable source that rely singly on the source whose reliability we try to check??? This is a ridiculous interpretation. Scholarship (and high-quality journalism) do not work that way. Vegan416 (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More straw men. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very little care in selection here. The Carnegie Endowment, for instance, is an advocacy group, not an academic journal. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This had already been addressed. Look at BobFromBrockley comment from 13:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC) who identified in JSTOR that the majority of 32 articles from peer review journals citing ADL as a reliable source in the last 3 years. Vegan416 (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff where he discusses the Carnegie Endowment one from 2024 which I objected to specifically? Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He didn't look at my selection. Inspired by me he made a new search in JSTOR only in peer reviewed journals. His comment is right here below/ Search for the words "32 articles since 2020 that mention the words "antisemitism" and "Anti-Defamation League"" on this page. PS while Carnegie Endowment might be called advocacy group, it is definitely not biased towards Israel or Zionism. Vegan416 (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vegan416: can you, for every source you cite, give the exact page number? For example, I have no idea where this source talks about ADL, so I can examine the context for myself. VR (Please ping on reply) 22:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While obviously it would have been more helpful to give page numbers, I don't think it's that big a deal. Using search, I can see that the ADL is cited in footnotes 72, 73 and 126. It might be easier to read on the publisher's webpage here: In 2023, Jewish organizations faced an epidemic of swatting incidents, in which a hoax reporting of a crime at a specific address brings armed police to a site at which they expect to confront violence. This increase took place prior to the spike in antisemitic threats and violence that occurred after October 7.72 Jewish organizations first witnessed an uptick in hateful rhetoric from the right after 2017 and from the left following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Threats from the illiberal left and right are now putting Jews at increased risk across a broader geography, spreading from threats at clearly Jewish organizations and synagogues to university campuses.73 And: The Anti-Defamation League challenged the 501(c)3 status of extremist organizations such as the Oath Keepers militia, whose leader was found by the Department of Justice to be guilty of seditious conspiracy.126 These, to me, are good examples of a reliable source using ADL as a source for facts about antisemitism in an unproblematic way, in two cases without in-text attribution and in one case with. I would say this is good practice, and why we should avoid option 3-4 for the antisemitism topic area. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the sources here are thinktank reports rather than peer-reviewed articles. Limiting to the latter by filtering gives 32 articles since 2020 that mention the words "antisemitism" and "Anti-Defamation League". The majority of these treat the ADL as a reliable source, although a small number (e.g. Ben White in the Journal of Palestine Studies) criticise it and some are history articles that mention it without using it as a source. Particularly notable are Daniel Staetsky (praised as a model of excellent methodology by Nishidani elsewhere on this page) saying that his methodology builds on one of the ADL's surveys,[84] a terrorism researcher listing ADL's HEATmap in a list of useful databases on extremism,[85] and a review by a criminologist of various hate crime monitors that discusses ADL as a source precisely for this.[86] In other words, quite a bit of USEBYOTHERS data. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ADL may well be reliable for this or for that but there 3 RFCs, IP area, antisemitism and hate symbols. Stick to those. Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Selfstudier Well, if you look at the next to last source I brought, from PNAS which one of the top tier of peer reviewed journals, you will see that it cites the ADL twice on questions of antisemitism (Maybe @Bobfrombrockley missed it because it spells "Anti-Semitic" instead of "antisemitism"):
    "Internationally, one recent global survey of 100 countries found that 32% of people who have heard of the Holocaust think that it is a myth or greatly exaggerated, including 63% in the Middle East and North Africa and 64% of Muslims in the region (11, 12)."
    "11. Anti-Defamation League, ADL Poll of Over 100 Countries Finds More Than One-Quarter of Those Surveyed Infected With Anti-Semitic Attitudes. (2014). https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-global-100-poll. Accessed 27 March 2020."
    12. Anti-Defamation League, New ADL Poll Finds Dramatic Decline in Anti-Semitic Attitudes in France; Significant Drops in Germany and Belgium. (2015). https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/new-poll-anti-semitic-attitudes-19-countries. Accessed 27 March 2020."
    Here is the proper citation as you like it:
    Nyhan, Brendan. “Why the Backfire Effect Does Not Explain the Durability of Political Misperceptions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 118, no. 15, 2021, pp. 1–7 Vegan416 (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You said that these were ADL cites from after 2020, those are two ADL polls from 2014 and 2015. Besides that, so what? I don't think anyone has denied that the ADL is cited by others. Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that the citations appear in articles published after 2020. This is how the search works in JSTOR. And I explained why I brought those sources - WP:USEBYOTHERS. This is particularly relevant against option 3 and 4 that ADL should be deprecated or declared generally unreliable. Vegan416 (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFCs are about specific areas, as regards the antisemitism RFC, most editors up to now appear to be arguing for attribution rather than gunrel. Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I don't think it is necessary, but in order to achieve consensus I won't object to attribution. Vegan416 (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vegan416: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep58112.11? cited about antisemitism (including in the Israel-Palestine context) - can you provide the exact quote where the ADL is being cited for something about the Israel-Palestine conflict? That is, the statement about the I/P conflict that they're being used as a citation for? I searched it myself and none of the citations to the ADL there even mention Israel or Palestine, nor were they used for parts of the paper discussing them. If it was an error or if you can't turn up a quote, could you strike the (including in the Israel-Palestine context) bit? --Aquillion (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The specific example you asked about is a bit complicated because for some reason the footnotes have a separate link from the article itself.
    Here is the article link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep58112.4?seq=9
    And here are the footnotes link (that's what I posted here before): https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep58112.11?seq=6
    The references to the ADL there are in footnote 73:
    “Anti-Semitic Incidents Surged Nearly 60% in 2017, According to New ADL Report,” Anti-Defamation League, February 27, 2018, https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/anti-semitic-incidents-surged-nearly-60-2017-according-new-adl-report; “ADL Records Dramatic Increase in U.S. Antisemitic Incidents Following Oct. 7 Hamas Massacre,” Anti-Defamation League, October 24, 2023, https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-records-dramatic-increase-us-antisemitic-incidents-following-oct-7;
    This footnote is a footnote to this sentence in the article itself: "Jewish organizations first witnessed an uptick in hateful rhetoric from the right after 2017 and from the left following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Threats from the illiberal left and right are now putting Jews at increased risk across a broader geography, spreading from threats at clearly Jewish organizations and synagogues to university campuses."
    I think it is quite obvious that this talks about antisemitism in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Vegan416 (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RS having to revise articles based on ADL data

    Since we are doing multiple subsections, I'll add one. Here are two examples of news media having to revise articles after having uncritically used ADL data:

    • The recent CNN story based off the ADL data includes this note: Clarification: This story has been updated to include additional information about how the ADL tracks incidents of antisemitism since the start of the Israel-Hamas War. CNN first went with the ADL's number of "361%" from the press release in the Jan 10 version of the article, but then had to revise the story to add three new paragraphs and the "176%" number, to reflect statistics without incidents newly categorized by ADL as antisemitic.
    • NBC likewise had to revise its article: Antisemitic incidents in the U.S. surged after Oct. 7 Hamas attack, advocacy group says. Their note reads as follows: CLARIFICATION (Jan. 11, 2024 1:57 p.m. ET): This article has been updated to add details on how ADL has changed the way it compiles data on antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7. NBC had to change the headline as well; the original read: "Antisemitic incidents in the U.S. jumped 360% after Oct. 7 Hamas attack, advocacy group says".

    This suggests that ADL has become an unreliable source to the point that news outlets that rely on its reporting have to issue corrections after the fact. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If a news outlet has used a source uncritically, isn’t that more of a reflection on them than on the source? I see neither of these two updates is described as a correction (rather, they are described as clarifications). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily, ADL trumpeted the increase but didn't trumpet the change in criteria, misleading at best. Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the original ADL press release which indeed trumpeted the increase and didn't mention the change in criteria, although thrice says the data is "preliminary". It notes that it includes "1,317 rallies, including antisemitic rhetoric, expressions of support for terrorism against the state of Israel and/or anti-Zionism." I can't see what was changed when it was amended a week later. I agree that not mentioning a change in methodology is sloppy at best, misleading at worst. Don't think that evidences general unreliability in the way being argued though. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in my view bias to the point of unreliability to lump any of those three things together. Much less all three of them. Loki (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not if you are tracking public anti-Jewish actions and using modern definitions, then all 3 are covered. FortunateSons (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve previously pointed out that the Working Definition of Antisemitism, while popular among governments and advocacy groups, is controversial among scholars and by no means universally accepted. Dronebogus (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a reflection on both, isn't it? If skepticism is required of the sources claims, that implies it's not actually generally reliable for our purposes. Loki (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The clarification wasn’t to increase skepticism, it was to increase visibility of the definitions being used. I agree that not stating the definition change alongside the headline statistic is questionable, but I think that is evidence more of bias than unreliability. Looking into their explainer[87] on the change, they present it not as a methodology change, but rather that the backdrop context of the war renders certain expressions of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic that might not have counted in mellower times. That is ultimately their opinion, and the charge of anti-semitism is closer to a subjective opinion than an objective fact. Certainly this source needs to be handled with greater than usual care, and it’s not a source which should get waved through into wikivoice - hence “additional considerations”. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @K.e.coffman These are not "corrections" but "clarifications". In other words CNN and NBC do not say that the ADL was wrong about facts, but rather that definitions used were not clear enough. And CNN and NBC do not say that ADL definition (that AZ=AS) is necessarily wrong either. They just clarify what is the definition used by the ADL because some people objected to this definition. A dispute about a definition doesn't make the ADL generally unreliable. Vegan416 (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, we, as a community, object to that definition as fringe. Nowhere on Wikipedia will you find a statement substantiated in Wikivoice asserting that conflation, because it is, politely speaking, unacceptable fringe, and, frankly speaking, drivel. Again, were in not already painfully obvious from a conceptual perspective, you only have to look to see Anti-Zionism and antisemitism existing as separate pages and briefly check the definitions, or do the same on any encyclopedic or RS resource, to observe the difference. Similarly, nowhere will you find the notion that the conflation is a valid minority position within the academic mainstream. You will find RS and scholarly sources denouncing the conflation, and then a small coterie of POV-pushing sources defending the conflation as somehow not intellectually and morally bankrupt. Needless to say, we stick to mainstream. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iskandar323 To be clear, politely speaking, what you said here is absolute nonsense. We don’t say in wikivoice that “AZ is a type of AS” for the same reason that we don’t say in wikivoice that “AZ is not a type of AS”. Namely, because as wikipedia community, HAVE NO OPINION on this question, and therefore we neither endorse, nor object the view that “AZ is a type AS”, and we definitely do not regard this view as fringe. This is because of WP:NPOV policy. And the fact that there are different articles for Antizionism and Antisemitism doesn’t prove your claim either, because even those who think that “AZ is a type of AS” don’t mean that these concepts are exactly identical! That would be ridiculous because AS is much older and much wider than AZ. What “AZ=AS” actually means is that AZ is a subset of AS, or to be even more precise that there is a large overlap between AZ and AS. This view about the relation between AZ and AS is best illustrated by this Ven Diagram here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TheRelationshipBetweenASandAZ.jpg
    As for the question of what we can say is really mainstream and what is really fringe (outside of wikipedia’s NPOV) this had already been discussed here enough and continuing this discussion at length here would be bludgeoning. Therefore I’ll respond to you about that in my talk page later and notify you so you can respond there if you (or anyone else here) will wish to do so Vegan416 (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't state that "AZ is not a type of AS" because you don't need to affirm a negative – it's the default state of things. And of course Wikipedia endorses opinions: it endorses mainstream opinions based on a consensus understanding of RS sources. You neither understand the issues here nor how Wikipedia works. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are bludgeoning here. As I said if we you wish to continue this discussion you can respond at my talk page when I'll write my lengthy reply, or you can move the discussion to your talk page. I'll be glad to continue there as well. Vegan416 (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are doing infinitely more bludgeoning than anyone else here. Dronebogus (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    From the River to the Sea" in the Real World Context

    There was significant discussion about this phrase above, so I want to make a distinction between the hypothetical meaning of it, and the "real-world" meaning of it to which the ADL refers.

    Some people say that the slogan “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free” doesn’t necessarily negate the idea of Jewish self-determination in the holy land, since a "free and democratic" one-state solution can in theory be a manifestation of the self-determination of both Jews and Palestinians. That is debatable. But in any case, if people really meant this slogan in this way, then this should have been reflected in the protests where this slogan is chanted. For example, it would have been expected that the people chanting this slogan would do it while carrying the flags of Israel and Palestine together. Or that they would print on their shirts some of the ideas of combined flags that had been suggested for a one-state solution (see for example here, here and here).

    But in fact, nothing like this happens. In all the protests, the people who chant this slogan carry only Palestinian flags and symbols. Moreover, quite often this slogan is visually explicated to mean the deletion of Jewish self-determination, by using it alongside images of the entire area of the holy land “from the river to the sea” covered by the colors of the Palestinian flag, or by a Palestinian keffiyeh, without any Jewish symbols whatsoever. See many examples from demonstrations (1 2 3 4 5), T shirts (including sold through Amazon), badges, masks, book covers and more.

    So, to sum up, while hypothetically the slogan “from the river to the sea” might perhaps be used in a meaning that is not contradictory to Jewish self-determination, in practice in the protests and other contexts that the ADL condemned, it had actually been used as a slogan against Jewish self-determination, i.e. an Antisemitic slogan according to the IHRA definition appendix. In the words of Per Ahlmark - in the past, some antisemites wanted to make the world Judenrein, today some antisemites want to make the world Judenstaatrein.

    PS, the US house yesterday condemned this slogan as antisemitic, by a landslide majority of 86%! This shows again how ridiculous is the opinion that this is a fringe view, and that holding this view should make the ADL an unreliable source. This is especially true if consider that this is after all a political question and not a scientific one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegan416 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Whoever wrote this drivel forgot to sign, but I'd like to inform them that we do not listen to what any particular government has to say about a polarized issue. How would you react if someone made an argument phrased identically to yours, same big bold letters and everything, but instead of arguing about the U.S. House passing a resolution saying that "from the river to the sea" is antisemitic, it was an argument about the various governments of the world that endorsed South Africa's genocide case against Israel? Not well, I'd imagine. We do not repeat the positions of governments in Wikivoice.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanilla Wizard 1. You are using a straw man. I never said that we should "repeat the positions of governments in Wikivoice". What I actually said is that it is ridiculous to say that the view that "From the River to the Sea" is antisemitic is fringe, when it gets 86% majority in the USA House.
    2. You are also wrong in claiming that this is the view of one "particular government". In fact, this is the view of several governments and scholars. See here From the river to the sea#Legal status. The IHRA definition which is the base of this view is accepted by an even larger number of governments and scholars. See here Working definition of antisemitism#IHRA publication - Adoption section. So again, it cannot be viewed as fringe.
    3. You also completely ignored the main point of my comment, which was that the way that the slogan is used in the anti-Israeli protests actually proves that the intention of the protesters is to delete the Jewish self-determination. Vegan416 (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read and internalize WP:BLUDGEON. nableezy - 11:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. I’ll give Vegan416 a moratorium of three more comments before reporting them for bludgeoning. Dronebogus (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll give you one guess who wrote that... Levivich (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to ruin the suspense. nableezy - 03:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What should be discerned from this RFC?

    Obviously results are highly polarized, with a lot of “ADL is no good at all” and a lot of “ADL is 100% reliable”. There’s obviously not enough of a consensus to label it as any one thing, but there are enough reputable editors showing concerns about its reliability that it should somehow be acknowledged as a controversial and un-ideal source for most claims (since nothing it’s cited for is uncontroversial). Dronebogus (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My take away… it can be cited, but use in-text attribution. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 3 RFC's. Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know but it’s basically one super-rfc Dronebogus (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see some difference between them, leaving aside the obvious crowd of "1"'s. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though I voted 1, for the sake of consensus I won't object to 2. I don't see in-text attribution as an affront when we are talking about political rather than scientific issues. Vegan416 (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Think there's a pretty clear consensus for option 3 on the first two RFCs, despite the bludgeoning by a number of people. nableezy - 22:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say on the second one there's a clear consensus for at least option 2 and a rough consensus for option 3, but that's a quibble. Loki (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus has to be based off of reliable sources, and a bunch of people saying "I don't like it" doesn't actually demonstrate the ADL in unreliable. As far as I can tell, the sides advocating a downgrade or depracation haven't actually shown any evidence the ADL is regarded as anything other than a reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been reliable sources showing the ADL lying about facts on the conflict. If you are unable to see that then I suggest you try reading the discussion again. Otherwise Id say your As far as I can tell is a personal problem. nableezy - 22:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read the discussion, and this simply hasn't been convincing. No need to throw around insults, though. Toa Nidhiki05 23:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unaware of any insults thrown around. But your being convinced is not the metric we decide consensus on. The claim that the sides advocating a downgrade or depracation haven't actually shown any evidence the ADL is regarded as anything other than a reliable source remains a straightforward false statement. nableezy - 03:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is absolutely no consensus on anything. I suggest you count and read the discussion again. Vegan416 (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, it isn’t based on how many times you said the same thing that the overwhelming majority of editors disagreed with. nableezy - 08:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a rough quick count of the votes on the antisemitism question (please recheck since I could have made mistakes). These seem to be the result:
    1: 12, 2: 17, 3: 20, 4: 6
    That doesn't look like any consensus. Vegan416 (talk) 08:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One consideration I haven't yet seen is that the ADL's reliability may or may not vary with its management. Different leadership, staffing, and strategies correspond with changes to any organizations capabilities (either on a particular subject or generally) and, as a result, should perhaps change expectations.
    For example, the ADL has made efforts to expand its international capabilities, and, there has been discussion surrounding the difference in capabilities, degree of controversy, and areas of focus between the current leader, Jonathan Greenblatt, and the previous leader, Abraham (Abe) Foxman 1, 2, 3.
    This may not be a practical standard to implement, but perhaps its worth consideration that material from the ADL on different subjects may meet different standards of reliability depending on when that informational material was published. Glinksnerk (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very good point. For example, most of the negatives above relate to the period since October 23, including a definition change in January and descriptions of protestors in this period, so I think there might be a stronger case for option 3 in this period (and for issues relating to the conflict) than in the prior periods. However, the three links there kind of cancel each other out. The third, an opinion piece in Charles Jacobs and Avi Goldwasser of the Jewish Leadership Project, attacks Greenblatt for being too left-wing, for supporting Black Lives Matter and other groups allegedly "hostile to the Jewish community". It also attacks Greenblatt for taking money from Pierre Omidyar. (Apparently, "Omidyar has also financed The Intercept, an Iran-apologist, radical left-wing news outlet that has at times defended Hamas and Hezbollah, antisemites in the British Labour Party, the Jew-hating leaders of the Women's March, and supporters of Louis Farrakhan.") So if we take that seriously, it's hard to also take seriously The Nation, which criticises it for being too pro-Trump. The Tablet, meanwhile, is not that critical (it discusses how the ADL attempts to be bipartisan and even-handed in a partisan, polarised world) and does not raise any issues relating to reliability. The criticisms of the ADL under Greenblatt which they cite are more aligned with the Newsweek op ed: that it is too critical of Trump and right-wing antisemitism and not sufficiently focused on Jewish-only issues rather than a civil rights perspective more broadly. These criticisms contradict the arguments raised on this talk page against ADL, which say almost the opposite. So my take-home from these three articles is that both the left and the right have ideological dislike for ADL, but I see no reliability issues raised in them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should actually read the criticisms in detail, and not put them into boxes. The Nation doesn't just criticize the ADL for being too pro-Trump but for collaborating directly with the government of Israel, which by itself would make the ADL not a reliable source. Loki (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note that that's a different Nation piece than the one I was replying to, which was the one Glinksnerk linked to.
    BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What that article establishes is a single opinion writer for a single left-wing outlet thinks the ADL is the spy agency of a hostile foreign power. If anything, the opinion piece goes to great lengths to emphasize how reliably and authoritatively the ADL is viewed by news outlets. I'm not going to value a single opinion piece over decades of earned credibility from mainstream news organizations, in other words. Toa Nidhiki05 03:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Nation isn't "left-wing"; it's "progressive" within US politics, which just means it picks up on a handful of meaningful social issues and presumably supports the slightest vestige of social security. The ADL is associated with at least one well-documented espionage scandal, and is openly a lobby group, so that's not controversial. And James Bamford is an award-winning journalist and specialist on espionage and intelligence, so it's not a random opinion; it's a featured analysis from an experienced, specialist journalist. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And he still states very clearly in the article that the ADL is uniformly regarded as reliable and reputable by mainstream media. He doesn’t like that, but it absolutely is. Toa Nidhiki05 15:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While detailing all of the organisation's red flags, he essentially points to the glaring and inappropriate systemic bias in coverage of the ADL – essentially flagging the very issue that Wikipedia editors should watch out for. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is MW better or worse than aboutself for a claim about Mohamed Hadid

    The question regarding the reliability of Mondoweiss, particularly per BLP, was discussed here, where the outcome included: […] that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution — for biographies of living people. No further consensus as to its underlying reliability emerged. The use case, which is contentious, would also be covered by an ABOUTSELF and is disputed when it comes to its accuracy, with the potential error being plausibly caused by the subject (and not the source).

    If the content is to be included (which is a secondary dispute not related to this board), should MW be used, or is an exclusive ABOUTSELF citation better? FortunateSons (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Article: Mohamed Hadid
    Discussion: Talk:Mohamed Hadid# Footnote 13 for BLP
    Cited text: In 2015, Hadid stated: "We became refugees to Syria and we lost our home in Safad to a Jewish family that we sheltered… they made us refugees and they kicked us out of our own home."
    MW: https://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/palestinian-details-refugee/
    Aboutself: See discussion FortunateSons (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the content is to be included the content is already included and has been for a while.
    As for the source: since every bit of what it states is factual, there is no reason to question it (unless the idea is to remove it so that the content is easily challenged). M.Bitton (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not seeing the quote in any high quality RS, so there is a secondary question of DUE unrelated to this discussion, which stands regardless of whether or not it’s aboutself or a disputed source. The question regarding sourcing is just that, and the purpose of this noticeboard, otherwise I would have used another FortunateSons (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) The content is well sourced (we can add another source to it if needs be). 2) It's not disputed. 3) It's very important to the primary subject. 4) it's been stable for a while. M.Bitton (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) the content can be sourced well by ABOUTSELF, but not MW (as cited above)
    2) It’s disputed (and therefore unstable) now, and it had been before, as cited in my original comment
    3) The importance can be disputed somewhere else, this is exclusively about the source and the decision here has no direct impact there FortunateSons (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The undisputed content is and has been stable for a while. That's a fact!
    The reliability of the sources (in context) has been addressed and I see no reason to repeat it. M.Bitton (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It may have been stable, it’s clearly not fully undisputed, but that also really isn’t the point.
    The reliability of this source in the context of the ‘new and improved’ RfC closure has not been discussed. FortunateSons (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The well sourced traumatic experience of the subject belongs in the article. M.Bitton (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not in favour of removing his parents flight, so yes. However, his statement that is either of limited plausibility, an unclear metaphor or counterfactual might not. And for a third (and hopefully last) time, this is the reliable sources noticeboard. If you want to open another discussion on content in the appropriate places, please tag me. FortunateSons (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i know exactly which board this is, that's why I stated that since the source in question is reliable in context, then there is nothing else to talk about. M.Bitton (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, particularly considering you yourself used about self to verify it, which indicates that you consider ABOUTSELF at least comparable if not superior. FortunateSons (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can all agree that is turning into yet another time sink. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the daily mail and there is no evidence of fabricating quotes, so I see no reason why it isn't a reliable source for Hadid's statement. (t · c) buidhe 07:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel strongly about this, as the MW article basically puts together all the social media posts and transcribes them into text (so it's a bit more user friendly than the social media posts), and the narrative is clearly attributed to him. This seems a low risk use of a bad source, with the flagging on the talk page being the "extreme caution" the close recommends. This does not mean MW is a usable source for making potentially defamatory claims about BLPs, and we should remain vigilant about that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see the problem. In my mind, exercising caution with a source in a BLP would mean not citing it (a) for statements that, if proved false, would be legally defamatory; (b) for extraordinary claims (i.e. John Smith has the world record for hot dog eating); (c) for analytical statements about the person; (d) for quotes and facts the accuracy of which is contested by RS or the subject him/herself. But to proscribe use of MondoWeiss for basic facts (i.e. DOB) and uncontested quotes would be to render it completely unusable for BLPs, since there's essentially nothing left at that point. Which does not seem consistent with the close. (Disclosure: I closed the RfC in question.) Chetsford (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The primary question here was if it was better or worse than an available aboutself citation. Bob made a convincing argument regarding readability (and implied accessibility), which I agree with. FortunateSons (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is the use case contentious? It looks like a primary/secondary republication of a primary source. This usage is appropriate. Buffs (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The content of the quote is disputed and in a contentious topic area, I thought a direct link would be better in such a case compared to a highly biased and fringe relatively contentious source, but I would consider it resolved based on readability arguments made above. Therefore, I agree that this is a case where use with great caution is met. FortunateSons (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    fringe source Feel free to substantiate this claim. M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re right, I will strike and replace it. Would you consider this to be accurate: „considered fringe or worthy of depreciation by a significant number of editors in the last RfC.“ FortunateSons (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an RFC, the close has been accepted for the most part except for the part about BLPs and there is a close review dealing with that. The fact is that most editors did not agree with considered fringe or worthy of depreciation and that's that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you be willing to suggest an alternative phrasing that captures the content? FortunateSons (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Found a mild meta-phrasing, do you approve? FortunateSons (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability of Country Living Magazine (UK)

    I saw this article added as a source to Cockapoo (https://www.countryliving.com/uk/wildlife/dog-breeds/a43173308/cockapoo-dog/). The first thing that stood out to me was that it spelt Shauna Walsh's name wrong twice which indicates a lack of overview/editing, the second was that Shauna Walsh is not a vet, as claimed in the article - instead she is a vet nurse: https://www.pdsa.org.uk/what-we-do/blog/who-keeps-the-dog-after-a-breakup https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/7-of-the-weirdest-christmas-themed-objects-animals-have-eate-336993/ https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/vet-explains-what-happens-end-28787012 https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/23493408.dogs-loved-royals-everything-know/

    I don't believe this article qualifies as a reliable source given the apparent lack of an editor and incorrect labeling of credentials. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The UK edition of Country Living does have an editorial team, credited here. I don't think two typos and a minor conflation of veterinary nurses and veterinarians as "vets" is enough to warrant some sort of formal decision about or against this magazine. It's normal for us as Wikipedia editors to capture the balance of reliable sources, rather than rely on only one. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'm mainly interested in the reliability of this specific article.
    >and a minor conflation of veterinary nurses and veterinarians as "vets"
    That's like conflating a nurse with a doctor, the level of credentials are very different. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and if you're ever admitted to the hospital, you're there because you need nursing care, not because you need a physician's care. Most small-animal vet care is routine and preventive, and a nurse is overqualified for most of it. It takes five minutes to teach someone how to weigh a dog, or to give it a vaccine. (Also, some nurses have doctorate degrees, so those nurses are "doctors", too.)
    The problem with articles about dog breeds' temperaments and medical issues is that they're usually based on the lowest levels of medical/veterinary evidence, and often simply repeat stereotypes or conventional wisdom. The contents are unlikely to be different in any magazine. If you want to improve the article, I suggest searching the vetmed literature directly. Sometimes we can even find sources that say things like "While the breed has a reputation for being very _____, in reality, it's about average." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe a nurse in a hospital treating patients would hold a doctorate, that's a research level degree and such option isn't available to veterinary nurses.
    >The problem with articles about dog breeds' temperaments and medical issues is that they're usually based on the lowest levels of medical/veterinary evidence, and often simply repeat stereotypes or conventional wisdom.
    Correct, unfortunately if they're a reliable source it's pretty hard to challenge their inclusion regardless of how generic the claims are.
    >I suggest searching the vetmed literature directly
    I've only found one epidemiological study that included a designer dog/crossbreed. There is very little literature on specific designer breeds. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose you could "contextualize" it with a source that says individual characteristics vary. It's not inherently bad to tell the fairy tale, but all this stuff about breed temperament needs to be presented as a fairy tale, or at least as having more to do with marketing claims than reality. SMcCandlish could probably recommend sources on that subject.
    For health effects, the progressive rod cone degeneration form of progressive retinal atrophy has been reported in cockapoos,[88] and cataplexy in another.[89] They have a lot of hair inside their ears, which can have health effects,[90] especially if they get otitis externa, which they might (or might not) be prone to.[91] Speaking of hair, they require more grooming effort than their buyers expect.[92] They might have double the risk for periodontal disease.[93] There are primary sources on individual conditions, if any individual condition should be checked.
    IMO it's pointless to declare this particular source to be unreliable, because there are so many others that say the same things. If you reject this source, someone will be back with another source, and another, and another. Like many of the List of common misconceptions, the information can be found in books from reputable publishers. This is one of those situations in which you have to fight low-quality evidence by finding and providing better information, rather than trying to knock out the citation on a technicality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source just states the condition exists, not how frequent it is. I can't read the second source but I will presume it's just a report of one. The epidemiological study on periodontal disease found an odds ratio of 0.96 for the cockapoo, so I'm not sure where you got double the risk, even the highest 95% CI is just 1.27, which isn't significant. The otitis externa claim is just a hypothesis without any data behind it.
    As I said there is little epidemiological evidence for these breeds, mostly just single case reports which shouldn't be on breed articles unless it's very notable to the breed - such as conditions named after the breed.
    The problem is contradictory evidence doesn't exist for rare breeds, and certain claims like 'they are healthy' or 'they are unhealthy' typically don't exist in the literature as such claims are avoided in academia/research. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Traumnovelle, look at Table 3, "Final breed-focused random effects multivariable logistic regression model for risk factors associated with periodontal disease in dogs", where cockapoos are given an odds ratio of 2.11 with a p-value of <0.001.
    I would not even claim that the otitis externa claim even rises so high as high as a hypothesis. I'd classify that as an off-the-cuff claim from one provider based on personal anecdotal experience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anecdotal experience from an expert isn't much better than anecdotal experience from a non-expert. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Fairy tale" is right. The problem with articles about dog breeds' temperaments and medical issues is that they're usually based on the lowest levels of medical/veterinary evidence, and often simply repeat stereotypes or conventional wisdom. It's actually worse, especially when you branch out a little further to other pet species like cats. The vast majority of the temperament/behaviorial claims are based on biased, non-scientific nonsense, most often breeders' promotional claims (repeated in pet magazines and websites, in breed profiles which are written by breeders of that breed, and the entire publications are editorially overseen by, you guessed it, breeders); or they're attempts to castigate various breeds as "inherently" dangerous by activists. Basically, we need to go through all these articles and just remove every behaviorial claim that does not have citations to multiple, reliable ethology (animal behavioral) sources, including ones written primarily by geneticists since that's where the research is going, but which are secondary (literature/systematic reviews), since even a lot of the primary research turns out faulty.

    With regard to dogs, there is actually a significant body of behavioral research to draw on (e.g. pointer and setter behavior of indicating where prey is without going after it is well understood now as something of a "micro-seizure" that has been selectively bred as a behavior pattern). But there is little support for notions that particular breeds are "naturally" violent or tranquil. For cats, the bullshitty claims are usually that particular breeds are more intelligent, are better with children, more adventurous vs. more skittish, more one-person oriented vs. more sociable, or better/worse with other pets, and there is virtually zero scientific evidence to back up any of this, ever. In some cases, it's based on outright lies. E.g., there are frequent claims that the Turkish Van cat breed (developed in Britain mostly from cats imported from Ankara and a few other places in Turkey) likes water more than other cats, based on a folk belief that the Van cat landrace likes to swim (itself an unproven claim), when there is not only no evidence of Van cat → Turkish Van ancestry, there's a large amount of evidence against that supposition, starting from the well-documented beginnings of the breed (they get confused due to name similarity, as well as intentional confusion introduced by breeders who want to associate various history and legends about Van cats with their unrelated bloodlines).

    When it comes to medical problems associated with particular breeds, this is generally better documented in veterinary and genetics journals, and in veterinary manuals, such as Breed Predispositions to Disease in Dogs and Cats, 3rd ed. (a high-quality secondary source). But there are even snake-oil books in this sector (no-name publishers, or self-publishing outfits). PS: Someone claiming "DVM" or other initials after their name doesn't automatically make them a reliable source, though the lack of them is a strong indicator of folklore-mongering and pushing of a anecdotal opinion.

    it's pointless to declare this particular source to be unreliable, because there are so many others that say the same things. If you reject this source, someone will be back with another source, and another, and another. The solution to this problem is a firm conclusion (here and reinforced at WT:MEDRS if necessary) that because magazines are low quality sources, and WP:MEDRS requires high-quality medical sources for medical claims, that all sources like Country Life (and pet fancier magazines, and breeder websites, and clickbait publishers who often do pieces on dog "designer crossbreeds", these days just based on "AI" scraping of other Internet junk material) are categorically unreliable for veterinary medical and ethological claims. Because they are. The problem that bad encyclopedists will keep injecting crap content with improper sourcing is an issue that affects thousands of subjects, and we handle it the same way every time: remove the improperly sourced material no matter how badly various editors (and maybe readers) want to see it, remind people what our sourcing standards are, and topic-ban them or indef them if they insistently return to abusing this site to promote activism or evidence-unsupported legends.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with most of what you said, but with one caveat: whilst MEDRS would be good to apply I think any application of it to veterinary medicine/science should be modified to remove the exclusion of primary studies. Veterinary literature is less common than human medical literature and systemic reviews/meta-analyses are much rarer. The issues with primary studies being used for veterinary or dog breed related articles are not as severe as the issue when it's used for human related articles.
    For example life expectancy, there is nothing other than primary studies for this for veterinary sources. Maybe in 20 years there could be enough to apply the same standards but currently applying the same standards would result in well collected statistics being thrown out in favour of WebMD. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The book SMcCandlish suggests is published by Wiley. I find reviews of the book but not the book itself in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library (Samwalton9 (WMF), you could put this on my wishlist).
    In the Oxford Reference books group (which is not part of TWL's main search system), cockapoo only appears in three dictionaries and as an example in the "Portmanteau Words" entry in Garner's Modern English Usage (the 2022 edition). There are short articles about some other dog breeds, e.g., ISBN 9780195093544 with an entry on the Doberman pinscher.
    Under the Cambridge group, I find ISBN 9781139161800, The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions with People from 2016. All the chapters are readable via TWL, and chapter 7, "Breed and gender differences in dog behavior", looks relevant for other articles, though neither cockapoos nor designer crossbreeds in general appear to be mentioned anywhere in the book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    genealogytrails.com

    I'm finding pages in this site with capsule local histories which may be useful in elucidating discussions of and filling out articles on "unincorporated communities" (meaning small towns without their own government). For example, I am pondering the use of this history of Marion Township in Boone County, Indiana to add material on Waugh, Indiana. My concerns are these: while the material does seem to be researched from places besides us, and likely primary sources, there are no citations. It's not impossible that some of this is based on personal recollection. Also, these are written by volunteers; it's not immediately apparent what degree of editorial review they exercise on each other. If I were in Indiana, I could check some of this out at the library, but I am unfortunately several hundred miles away.

    Anyway, has anyone any experience with the site or other observations? Info on these places is typically had to come by, and it would be nice to say more than where it is. At present I have no better evidence that it was a real town than the cited page and my interpretation of old topo maps, which does not cut the mustard. Mangoe (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Genealogytrails.com appears to largely fall under user-generated sources, and should generally not be used. In some cases it might host public domain text from historic published works (e.g. these biographies are from this 1887 book) - in such cases the original source should be cited directly, and reliability assessed on a case-by-case basis. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    PureWow review on animated episode

    At this writing, I am on my second edit of Draft:The Sign (Bluey), commemorating the just-premiered third-series finale of the Australian animated hit. GNews' latest brings up this review from PureWow, a women's lifestyle outlet which hasn't been discussed much on this site outside a late July 2015 AFD on its owner. Should we let it in after I receive the A-OK, or should we leave it out in light of better options?

    Given we mentioned a Bluey topic here at RSN, it's up to fellow watchers to give yours truly a hand. (Not to mention this is my first RSN stint if I'm not mistaken.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 13:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    GNews brings up this next review (from Romper.com). If both that and PureWow are acceptable, it might be enough for the draft to pass AFC in the next matter of days; more to come as I find them. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On a related note, this Comicbook.com article on the episode's Easter eggs may need some scrutiny. (Comicbook.com is owned by Paramount.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Going in reverse order. Comicbook is considered a marginal source. I can't find much on Romper, but it's owned by the same company as Bustle another marginal source. PureWow seems about the same, but they are much more SEO focused. It's seems the least reputable of the three.
    Given what you want to reference from these sources they look OK, I would have bigger doubts if you wanted to use them in a WP:BLP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another review, this time from Australia--and this time from an outlet called MamaMia. Not too sure on this one, since it's a reprint from original author Rebecca Sharley's Substack. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hearst Newspapers and AI Generated Content - SFGate and San Francisco Chronicle

    Today, there is an article about Hatsune Miku published by SFGate. The article received a lot of negative attention on Twitter due to its inaccurate information - like referring her vocals as AI-generated. The website also experimented with ChatGPT for its articles, and even has a report on its use (by the company Hearst): https://www.sfgate.com/ai_use/. Other HMF sites include SF Chronicle: https://www.sfchronicle.com/ai_use/ Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 22:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a lot of AI use going around but in SFGate's defence the twitter note that says SFGate is wrong points towards vocaloid.com/en/, where Vocaloid state VOCALOID6 is an AI-based technology. This seems like a discrepancy best discussed at talk:Hatsune Miku. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Spurious sources produced by machine learning might be something you are looking for or would be interested in. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope they don't over-use AI. Hearst owns a ton of great magazines and newspapers. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cyrtians and Balāśagān

    Hello, I want to know if the author’s opinion is authoritative regarding the habitat of Cyrtians in Balāśagān. Is the source reliable?

    Author: Naseer Dashti

    First book History of the Ancient Baloch

    Secod book: The Baloch and Balochistan. A Historical Account from the Beginning to the Fall of the Baloch State With respect, Aharon Erman (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not familiar with this but if the opinion was authoritative it would be quoted/mentioned in other reliable sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a self-published book. I would not want it anywhere near an article. Ostalgia (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hindustan Times

    1) Sorry Deepika Padukone, these are not the choices women need by ByJyoti Sharma Bawa, New Delhi
    2) Shah, Jigar (14 December 2014). "After hits like Cocktail and Finding Fanny, Deepika-Homi join hands for a cause". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 2 December 2023.
    My perception is publication Hindustan Times seem to engage in proper and paid news both in relation to Indian cinema.
    Concerns under discussion at WT:ICTF#Hindustan Times seem to be legitimate enough no doubt but seem different in this case, hence discussing at this discussion board and hope this discussion shall help discussion at WT:ICTF#Hindustan Times too.
    1) Hindustan Times article Sorry Deepika Padukone, these are not the choices women need by ByJyoti Sharma Bawa, New Delhi is very very highly critical of the short film. I doubt any one will pay for criticism having such level of ideological opposition. As such this article does not have any disclaimer and has an author as @DreamRimmer said. But a general advert iphone 15 is appearing before me - but I do not see any prima facie relation of I phone brand with the short film. So I just wish to confirm this won't be considered publishing paid brand post.
    2) Short film production related couple of detail seem clearer in the second news piece like Deepika Padukone's role in short film is limited to "She bookends the film and is also giving the voice over". Which can be confirmed directly with Short film You tube link. Other couple of news articles in other sources are as if she is doing a lead role in short film but that is not so. Hence I would prefer to use above mentioned second news piece if I get community concurrence.
    Ping @DreamRimmer, @Grabup, @CNMall41 since involved in discussion @ WT:ICTF#Hindustan Times
    Thanks
    Bookku (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like these articles are not paid. Grabup (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have checked out both articles, and honestly, I don't see any issues with them. Feel free to use them without any worries. Also, if you are connected to this film in any way, please check out the conflict of interest guidelines and make sure to follow the process accordingly. – DreamRimmer (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I used Hindustan Times for an article I created and I didn't pick up any issues with the articles I used but then I'm not super familiar with the source. TarnishedPathtalk 06:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have any COI in this or any other topic I write for sure. Basically women's rights areas have interested me and I have covered articles like My body, my choice otherwise I do not touch film topics much. Any ways in RS reception of this short film criticism is more so proportionately that is likely to come more on board. Last but not least I am deeply collaborative Wikipedian who invites as many contributors as possible, that may Wikipedians would have experienced, I would expect and look forward contribution to the draft article as much as possible. Bookku (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a question, there are many articles that are published by these reliable sources which are from synchronized feeds and these sources always add a disclaimer to these synchronized feed articles “This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.” Can we consider these articles as reliable? And can we consider these articles to meet GNG? Grabup (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grabup
    1) Is your question more general in nature (regarding reliability of syndicate feeds and news agencies) since following explanation would be very clear enough that it can not be applied in the above said specific two articles. If it's general then I suggest/request to open a separate section to avoid confusion on part of other users.
    2) Above both the articles do not have any such disclaimer, also these two articles are not credited to any syndicate feed nor any news agency but only credited to specific author or journalist.
    3) Probably for same reason @DreamRimmer @ WT:ICTF#Hindustan Times said ".. It's crucial to note that any article lacking a specific author shouldn't be relied upon. .." but @DreamRimmer would be in better place to speak for themselves.
    Bookku (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a general question. Grabup (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion you cite is a discussion, not policy. What would currently govern the user of HT is WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Upon looking at the sources you provided, they would not fall under that criteria so can be considered reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences

    • Paper: Female Sexual Politics in Tattooed with Taboos
      • Page nos: interested in content from page 94, 95 (Paper page numbers: 93-106)
      • Author: Dr. Ph. Jayalaxmi is Assistant Professor, Department of English, Manipur University
      • Volume URL PDF on https://mzu.edu.in
    • Publication Mizoram University Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences Vol III Issue 1 June 2017 ISSN 2395-7352
      • Chief Editor: Prof. Margaret Ch. Zama, Dept. of English,
    • Citation status: At google scholar I did not find any citations for above specific paper but some papers in the journal seem to have 1 to 12 citations.
    • To use in the draft My Choice (2015 film)
    • One of the above discussed following article has been cited in the above paper
    1) Sorry Deepika Padukone, these are not the choices women need by ByJyoti Sharma Bawa, New Delhi

    Up till now I have not used Indian university journal papers. So requesting inputs whether it's ok to use the paper for given purpose.

    Bookku (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences is from OPAST Publishers, a well-known predatory publisher. Avoid this like the plague. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lineups

    For additionial verification.

    Is https://www.lineups.com/ considered an unreliable source or a reliable source? More specific if its about information about a twitch streamer concerning how their channel places rank wise compared to others?

    In my opinion it does not seem like one, but searching for additional opinions Infrabel1 (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally in the case of how sites rank something they are reliable that they ranked something in a certain way, but not necessary reliable for saying the ranking in wikivoice ("Lineups.com rank them 4th", but not "they are ranked 4th"). Whether how they rank something is relevant to the article isn't a reliability issue, see WP:BALASP (is Lineups ranking something worth including). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this comment in the independent considered reliable for the biography of a non-living person?

    I came across this article when searching for sourcing about Olivia Frank, or is excluded from being used? I'm unfamiliar with the degree of editorial control when it comes to those. FortunateSons (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Independent is considered to be generally reliable. The article is an opinion piece, but the claim that Frank was an Israeli spy doesn't seem to be controversial e.g. the JC wrote about it as well. I'd say the source is fine. Cortador (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I’m specifically wondering about the degree of reliability for the claims about their work for British intelligence, which I left vague for now? FortunateSons (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @FortunateSons I would frame that as "Frank claimed to have been recruited by the MI5" etc. since both The Independent and the JC cite her as having stated that, but don't state that she was an MI5 operative on their own. Cortador (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re right, thanks FortunateSons (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Presenting information as indisputable fact when the first reference is the Bible

    In the Second Temple article it is written "The Temple Mount, where both Solomon's Temple and the Second Temple stood". No evidence has been found for Solomon's Temple much less that it existed at the Temple Mount. Minimalist Bible scholars generally believe that the first Temple's existence is likely or plausible but that we can't know for sure because there's no evidence; But this article is presenting uncertain information as if it's certain. I added a dispute tag and opened a talk topic but I was immediately reverted and accused of vandalism. I suggested switching the statement to "The Temple Mount, where it's believed that Solomon's Temple existed" but that suggestion was also rejected. Omar Jabarin (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't seem like the article is relying on the Bible, and editors in the talk page discussion have cited non-biblical sources. There's (at a glance) a reasonable debate to be had about how to present this info, so I think you're being a bit misleading by saying "the first reference is the Bible".
    FWIW, it's clear that your edits were not vandalism, and I'm sorry that other editors treated them that way. If it happens again, please ping me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources that they provided in the talk page are an article to an Israeli website of someone saying "it definitely existed" and the other source is literally a page out of a book quoting "Ezekiel". There's debate among scholars and there is no evidence of Solomon's Temple. This is also mentioned in Solomon's Temple article. "No direct evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple has been found". Omar Jabarin (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For further clarification on the bigger picture, this editor did not wait for consensus on the talk page, and removed bits from the article that does not suit his POV. I originally asked him to take it to the talk page, yet he continues to try and push his POV in edits to the article, adding banners and being the only one to use a non-neutral tone, specifically in edit summaries. Equine-man (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you recall, I explicitly directed you to the parts of the Solomon's Temple page which discuss the historicity of the structure (with associated sources), twice. While the first editor who responded to you did link you to Haaretz, their comment also included 3 completely separate academic works which supported their view. I agree Haaretz should not have been linked as a proof, but you seem to willingly ignore both the portents of the discussion and the pages in question that actually addressed your concerns. Sinclairian (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I'm not denying the existence of a First Temple. I'm not qualified enough to determine that. What we do know is that there's no direct evidence of it. Therefore, any scholarship regarding the First Temple would have to be relying on speculation to some extent and the article should reflect that. Instead the article presents it as a certain fact without any wiggle room which is simply not up to the editor to decide. Omar Jabarin (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't require that reliable sources have 'direct evidence' to our personal standards - we just follow along with whatever standard the sources think is appropriate. MrOllie (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no reliable source that says Solomon's Temple certainly existed which is what that article is presenting. Other articles about Solomon's Temple, including the main article and even the article about Temple denial don't say that. I don't see why an article which isn't even about Solomon's Temple to begin with is redundantly stating that; and I don't understand what's the harm in adding clarification/elaboration in terms of maintaining neutrality and objectivity. Omar Jabarin (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, according to wikipedia's own disputed definition disputed statements are defined as the following:
    "Reference to sources that are outdated or whose reliability has been subsequently questioned"
    According to Solomon's Temple article "as of today, there is no solid archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple, and the building is not mentioned in surviving extra-biblical accounts" which means the building is only mentioned in extra-biblical account which means the source are by definition outdated and questioned.
    And also:
    "Information that is particularly difficult to verify"
    Fits to a T. I suggest if a clarification is not added then at the very least keep the disputed tag. Omar Jabarin (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been explained to you several times, there are multiple reliable sources which say Solomon’s Temple certainly existed. The entire debate surrounding it that we have extensively detailed is when the structure was built. Wikipedia is built off sources, and the sources say the Temple existed. Sinclairian (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the Solomon's Temple article
    "as of today, there is no solid archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple, and the building is not mentioned in surviving extra-biblical accounts"
    How can a Temple from 3000 years ago with no surviving extra-biblical account or archaeological evidence have reliable sources that claim it certainly existed? The first reference is by definition the Bible. Many people are rightfully skeptical of anything that relies on the Bible as a first reference. "X scholars strongly believe this Temple existed despite no actual material evidence" is not sufficient evidence even for mild skeptics. Omar Jabarin (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop cherry-picking the article to support your POV. The full sentence you seem to love quoting in this thread is, "Because of the religious and political sensitivities involved, no archaeological excavations and only limited surface surveys of the Temple Mount have been conducted since Charles Warren's expedition of 1867–70. As of today, there is no solid archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple, and the building is not mentioned in surviving extra-biblical accounts, save for perhaps a single fragmented ostracon that mentions a "house of Yahweh" without any further specification." In other words, there's no evidence because there has never been an excavation, and the building is not mentioned in surviving extra-biblical accounts except for a single ostracon.
    Once again, as I will know make as clear as humanly possible, the article states: "Although no remains of the temple have ever been found, most modern scholars agree that the First Temple existed on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem by the time of the Babylonian siege, though there is significant debate over the date of its construction and the identity of its builder." and "Most scholars today agree that a temple had existed on the Temple Mount by the time of the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem (587 BCE), but the identity of its builder and its construction date are strongly debated." Consensus says there was a Temple, and that is all Wikipedia cares about. Please stop throwing out the same arguments over and over again, you have been thoroughly debriefed. Sinclairian (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If most modern scholars agreed, there would be ample sources quoting something other than biblical and extra-biblical accounts, verifying that. If you can't prove that with other reliable source complete separate from a religious text which has been translated and retranslated countless times over thousands of years, then it should be worded in the same way as the main Temple article - precisely as Omar Jabarin already suggested in compromise. If the qualification is that, the only reason we do not have archeological evidence is because they are not willing to risk excavating it, then that's what the article should say. It most definitely should not say "The temple stood here." Because that is not supported by reliable sources.
    And I'm struggling to understand why anyone objects to using any of the text you just cherry-picked to qualify that sentence in the article. Because the wording now doesn't imply a consensus, it implies there is empirical evidence to confirm it's location - which you're bolded text says is not true. And after read the sources, the Talk page of the article and this conversation, I am still struggling to understand any objection to his disputed tag or to his suggestions to modify the text to be more accurate.
    Because, the fact that "Reference to sources that are outdated or whose reliability has been subsequently questioned" IS in the disputed guideline proves that your claims of a consensus are not all Wikipedia cares about. It cares about accuracy of relevant details and reliability of sources. The source needs to say that such a consensus exists without empirical evidence, why they've come to that conclusion without testing their hypothesis, and then the article needs to reflect that this is what the source said. CleverTitania (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you can add disputed tag even if many scholars think that a temple stood there. Because like the CleverTitania said the information is:
    1.Information that is particularly difficult to verify
    2.Reference to sources that are outdated or whose reliability has been subsequently questioned
    Due to no surviving extra-Biblical verifying the Temple and no archaeological evidence. The reasons why there is no evidence is not so relevant to the certainty of the information.
    I don't understand why you object so much to rewording it in a way that fits the main article or simply adding a dispute tag. It can literally be clarified by adding 2 words to the article. It shows that you're currently not being neutral about this. Omar Jabarin (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually there is no debate even among Minimalist Bible scholars that the first Temple existed. The only debate is about when exactly it was built, i.e. by Solomon (if he existed at all) or by some later Judean king. Vegan416 (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is very much my takeaway; I think the consensus is that a structure predated the Second Temple, but perhaps we could lessen the tension if we simply called it "First Temple?" When speaking of it archaeologically, this strikes me as appropriate, while reserving "Solomon's Temple" for the religious and explicitly biblical context. Just a thought, feel free to disregard! Dumuzid (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to using "First Temple". But this discussion belongs in the article talk page and not here. So I'm leaving this discussion now. Vegan416 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is debate. This is also discussed in this article:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_remnants_of_the_Jerusalem_Temple
    "Because of the religious and political sensitivities involved, no archaeological excavations and only limited surface surveys of the Temple Mount have been conducted since Charles Warren's expedition of 1867–70. As such, archaeologists continue to remain divided over the existence of the Temple. Kathleen Kenyon claimed that there was no archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple, but this view is disputed by Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman argue that the first Jewish temple in Jerusalem was not built until the end of the 7th century BCE, around three hundred years after Solomon. They believe the temple should not really be assigned to Solomon, who they see as little more than a small-time hill country chieftain, and argue that it was most likely built by Josiah, who governed Judah from 639 to 609 BCE. However, Alan R. Millard argues that this minimalist view is essentially a subjective judgement. Philip Alexander argues against the minimalist view based on the detail presented in the written record." Omar Jabarin (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What's policy ..

    Above discussion reminded me of a doubt in my mind since long (unrelated to above discussion).

    What's policy when supposedly WP:RS credible published Secondary source makes a claim of fact, which has no support in any primary sources what so ever. Whether in such cases too a reliable source can be considered reliable in spite of such flaw? Wish to know, what are the present policies in such respect? Just a curiosity no specific case on my hand at this moment.

    Bookku (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    By definition, nothing prehistoric is going to be in any contemporaneous written source. Policy is to follow the conventions of the scholarly discipline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Agreeing with @Alanscottwalker in regard to conventions of the scholarly discipline; for instance WP:MEDCITE speaks to the sourcing for medical-related articles, WP:SOCIOLOGY appears to abide by the standard WP:RS criteria, though there is a general "science" sources recommendation at WP:SCIRS.
    My point is that any organized subject area, typically meaning something covered by a Wikiproject, could have a topic-oriented reliable sources guideline that is more specific than WP:RS.
    On the general matter of Secondary Sources without (apparent) Primary Sources support -- if one were to exclude these, then pretty much EVERY newspaper and magazine (non-Scientific journal) article would be out of bounds for use. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, but that doesn't mean there is a blind faith that those sources contain 'truth'. It's a matter or 'support' and 'verifiability' not 'truth', and the validity of the 'verifiable support' pillar is upheld by WP:RSP and discussions (archived and current) on this page and its archives.
    If a source has not been discussed or assessed - you use your best judgement as an editor and experience as a reader of material in the topic area.
    That's my opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In The Hammer/The Hammer

    What is the reliability of this source? According to their editorial policy, they would reach out to the appropriate parties and individuals to confirm any tips or other information we might receive from various sources, so it seems to be a bit of a primary source (but still mostly secondary source). Quoting its editorial policy, If we receive information about an individual or organization that is accusatory or unflattering in nature, we give the other party ample time (typically no less than 24 hours) to respond, which might be a concern when it comes to reliability (for me, that is). Brachy08 (Talk) 03:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Grantome.com in biographies

    Grantome.com is a database of grants issued from various grant-giving institutions. Right now it's mostly entries from the National Institutes of Health. I see this come up sometimes in the cleanup or revision of articles on scientist BLPs showing that they did some work on a specific project, but there's no resultant scientific paper to cite about it, so the grant issued for the work is cited instead. I find this to be a very poor source as it doesn't really indicate anything about the information given in the article - only that at once point there was some work that was funded, not the results of it. Currently grantome is cited in 346 articles and I feel like it should not be considered reliable as a source for anything - ideally, it would be removed in every instance along with the information it "supports" unless subsequent published research that resulted from it can be identified and used to replace the grant. Reconrabbit 15:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This might be less about reliability and more about whether such details should be included (WP:BALASP). It likely reliable in an almost primary way that these grants were made, but if nothing came of them do details of those grants need to be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't answer your question about Grantome.com but someone who is looking for information about NIH grants should probably be citing NIH's own database of awarded grants. ElKevbo (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indian Research Journal of History and Humanities and Social Sciences

    The article Rajput clans cites an article from the Indian Research Journal of History and Humanities and Social Sciences (IRJHHSS). Is anyone here aware of such a publication? utcursch | talk 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at the contributions of the user who added this - I'm now certain that the user is a sock, and no such journal exists. utcursch | talk 00:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't be sure about the journal not existing – these generic names are typical of predatory journals, which do exist but are worthless. I have lost count of how many emails from journals with very similar names I have received over the years. It would actually be better for academia if you were correct and it did not exist at all. Ostalgia (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of the slew of 'publisherless' predatory journals out there. It 'publishes' directly via Zenodo with a name similar to a dozen other such journals. Avoid. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discord

    This recent addition at Sam Reich:

    Citing a private Discord chat room, the service for which I cannot determine whether it has any mechanism for validating the identifies of users. My knee-jerk reaction is to say 'no way', but I'm surprised to see this hasn't been previously discussed (I assumed there'd be a WP:RSP#Discord), and there's some possibility it might fall under WP:SELFPUB (considering I'm unfamiliar with this social network). Anybody know more and better than I? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (Copied from Wikipedia talk:Discord#shortcut?:) My immediate reaction is that citing Discord would be absurd, but thinking about it, I can't see any meaningful difference between it and other social media platforms that we allow under WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Discord chat rooms are, unless configured otherwise, public and as such constitute (self-) published information. You have to set up an account and accept their Terms of Service to see the information, but that is also true of Facebook, JSTOR, your local university library, and many other perfectly acceptable sources. Difficulty of access is not something that disqualifies something as a source either; again see Facebook, JSTOR, your local university library... Discord can't possibly be a good source—if you can only source something to there, is it really WP:DUE?—but technically it is permissable under the existing guidelines at WP:SOCIALMEDIA. – Joe (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So a Discord chat room being private and inaccessible doesn't run afoul of WP:SOURCEACCESS? How does one verify the claims made? Secondly, do the chat rooms have a account verification mechanism for the participants, such that what an article attributes to alleged person "X" is actually and verifiably person "X"? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A private chatroom would be unusable because it wouldn't qualify as WP:PUBLISHED. --Aquillion (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm talking only about public rooms. And as I said in the original discussion on Wikipedia talk:Discord, lack of account verification is not unique to Discord, it applies to the vast majority of accounts on all social media platforms. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Private discords are generally unusable for several reasons. First of all, they don't qualify as WP:PUBLISHED for WP:V purposes; since they are private, they are not available to the public. Second, it can be incredibly difficult to verify that someone on a Discord is actually who they say they are; they lack any form of account verification. While WP:ABOUTSELF allows us to cite people on other social media platforms for trivial biographical details about themselves, that's only possible because such accounts are usually verified or well-known, and because they are publicly available, satisfying our definition of "published." Even if a chatroom is open to the public, and even if the citation provided enough information for people to find it (a necessary component), the issue of eliminating any reasonable doubt as to the identity of the person in question would remain. --Aquillion (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This are all good reasons to avoid citing social media, but I'm struggling to see how they apply to Discord more than say, Facebook or X. Those sources are also only "publicly available" if you have an account. And the operators only verify the accounts of a tiny fraction of users. – Joe (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Generally twitter is, as I understand it, available to everybody who has an account. The same is not true of a discord server, which is available only to a certain subset of users, at the whim of whomever runs it. So if I post something on Twitter anyone who bothers to sign up for an account can read it; if I have a private discord server then only people who specifically apply to me for permission can see it, and only if I decide they meet my criteria, which can be whatever I want them to be. (Facebook uses both models depending on a user's settings; I would consider a public Facebook page, which is more akin to Twitter, to be more acceptable than a private one, more akin to discord) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes I think we are only talking about public Discord servers here. An analogy might be that while tweets on Twitter are okay sources, direct messages are not. – Joe (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would imagine it hasn't been discussed because it's such a gobsmackingly awful idea nobody has even conceived of the idea of citing it -- it's a random vendor-locked closed source IM application where messages can (and do) randomly go poof for no reason, with no public record of the messages or even of the fact that they were deleted. There is no way to provide archived copies of them. It's literally against the Discord terms of service to keep local records of your own messages! Of course it is not acceptable to cite it. jp×g🗯️ 05:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Discord is a social media site. Citing a private Discord channel or server is about as bad as I can imagine, but I don't agree with blanket banning it. Many companies use it as a mechanism for public communication now, in the way that certain countries or groups use Telegram as a method for disseminating information.
    I don't believe we should make an WP:RSP entry for Discord because it's going to be very dependent on the context of its usage. As an example, statements made by an organization in its official Discord server would fall under WP:ABOUTSELF while statements in a DM are about as unverifiable as it can get. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I think we can take from this discussion, which might be obvious but isn't actually spelled out anywhere, is that WP:SOCIALMEDIA only applies to public posts etc. on social media platforms. I've made a minor edit to hopefully clarify that. It might be worth a follow-up discussion of how many barriers a platform can throw up (i.e. accept our ToS, register an account, download our vendor-locked software) before we stop considering it public/published. – Joe (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Student newspaper for controversy on a BLP

    Brendan O'Neill (columnist) has a lot of sourcing issues, but one of them is an addition of "Oxford Student" newspaper. For example, in this edit an op-ed in the newspaper (not about self either) is cited to describe the subject "staunch free speech absolutist" and another two articles are cited for the subject being "a strong critic of transgenderism". Is this appropriate use of sources on a blp? (t · c) buidhe 20:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I changed the wording on the section about O'Neill's stance on transgender issues. However, I am staying firm on citing The Oxford Student as a reliable source. Again, in what possible way is it not? Countless other articles cite it as a source and its reliability has never been called into question.--LadybugStardust (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Student newspapers are not usually considered WP:RS. And even if they were, citing op-eds for anything but the author's POV is rarely appropriate. (t · c) buidhe 21:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Student_media. Also, none of the Oxford Student articles that I cited were op-eds. One was a neutral profile of O'Neill and the other two were neutral news articles about the protests over his speaking on campus. The Oxford Student is not "RightWingPatriot1776.com". It is a highly respected - if not the most highly respected - student newspaper that, again, is used as a source in countless other articles with no issue ever being raised over its reliability.--LadybugStardust (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be helpful to review how we summarize the prevailing consensus about the reliability of student newspapers. ElKevbo (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to source O'Neill's transphobia there are other reliable sources available [94] [95]. I'm sure there are others. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So... The Oxford Student isn't a reliable source... but PinkNews is? PinkNews doesn't even pretend to be objective. It's an LGBT advocacy website.--LadybugStardust (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PinkNews does have a point of view, but so does any other source one is likely to news. Per WP:PINKNEWS, when the community has considered them as a source, we've found it to be reliable. Reliability is not neutrality. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if using outright activism sites as sources is fine, then surely using a highly respected student newspaper as a source should be fine as well.--LadybugStardust (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that's not how logic works. Two different things can be judged as different things. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is how logic works, as the discussion is about which sources are reliable sources, and the argument being made is that it's perfectly fine to use activism websites as reliable sources, but it's not okay to use highly respected student newspapers. Your attempt at a smartalecky retort falls completely flat on its face.--LadybugStardust (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't cite a student newspaper for controversial or negative claims about a living person. I don't think it should matter if the person is a student or a community member or a visitor. We should only accept top-tier sources for such claims. About the only exception I could see is if the news source were widely cited by reputable sources, per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Woodroar (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source was in reference to O'Neill being protested at the University of Oxford - and what better source for that than The Oxford Student?--LadybugStardust (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One written by a journalist with an actual degree and post-graduate experience, edited by an editor with an actual degree and post-graduate experience, fact-checked by—well, you get what I mean. This is the source we're talking about, right? I can't even find a byline.... Woodroar (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's the source for his views on freedom of speech. These are the sources for his views on transgender issues: [96][97]--LadybugStardust (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, "PC language police"? Seriously? Woodroar (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the complaint was because I used the word "transgenderism", so... yeah. It's not like I said "trannyism" or something like that. It's petty PC nitpicking over language along the lines of demanding that people say "unhoused" instead of "homeless". And no, I am not a conservative by any stretch, but I really have little patience for that kind of nonsense.--LadybugStardust (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course student media shouldn't be used as the source for controversial descriptions on a controversial BLP..... JoelleJay (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I cited The Oxford Student for O'Neill's views on freedom of speech and later for the fact that he was protested at the University of Oxford. I'm not saying anything that's in dispute.--LadybugStardust (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP isn't just about having a reliable source, but using the best sources available (Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources). If there are other sources for this content use them, otherwise I doubt a student newspaper makes the grade. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Surely there will be better sources for these claims than a student paper? A fair bit has been written about O'Neill, far more than is warranted in my view.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to agree… a student newspaper is not an appropriate source. One factor that hasn’t been raised yet: DUE WEIGHT. If the only news source to report on this protest is a local student outlet, I have to question whether the protest is considered important enough for us to mention in a BLP. And if other news sources mention it, we can use them instead. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with nearly everyone else: especially if we have a better RS like the one Black Kite pointed to, there's no reason to be using a student paper for this kind of statement. -sche (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability of Gajanan Bhaskar Mehendale

    Is it reliable to cite from the source of Gajanan Bhaskar Mehendale's "Shivaji His Life and Times that Shivaji was not the vassal of the Mughal empire, based on the quote He (Shivaji) had never been, and was never likely to be, anybody's vassal. Concern is raised as according to the The Mughal Empire by John F. Richards, Shivaji was a vassal of the Mughals after the Treaty of Purandar. I think the quote from Mehendale got misrepresented that it says "He had never been, and was never likely", is in past tense, so it perhaps not contradicting the vassalization, but representing the current (time of getting vassalized) condition. Imperial[AFCND] 09:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability of Google Earth

    I can't find any information concerning Wikipedia policy about the reliability of Google Earth as a source for elevations and coordinates of places. I've cited Google Earth as a source in many articles -- and had it deleted a few times. In those cases, the editor has substituted a "citation needed" tag. Well, Google Earth is a citation -- and to my mind is far preferable to no citation at all.

    As an example of my use of Google Earth, I use it as a source of elevations for rivers, towns, and mountains, mostly in Latin America. The elevation of a place is often an important determinant of its climate, agriculture, and topography. If an alternative to Google Earth is available for this information about many remote and obscure places, I don't know what it is. To illustrate the use of Google Earth in an article, see Lauricocha River in which Google Earth is cited as a source three times. To understand what this river is like, you have to know the elevations along its route and I don't know of other sources as accurate as Google Earth. (To be clear, two people determining the elevation or coordinates of a place using Google Earth might come up with slightly different answers, but the differences in the vast majority of cases would be insignificant.)

    Now, I suppose that using Google Earth could be considered "original research." I would maintain that it is no more original research than adding up two numbers in a math article. Anyway, I would propose that Google Earth be designated a reliable source for elevations and coordinates of places, provided that official governmental sources of that information is non-existent or inaccessible. Comments? Smallchief (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel like it’s probably about as reliable as many massive geographical indexes i.e. not very. I’m mostly thinking of place name databases that include any cluster of houses as an “unincorporated community” but it probably applies to other things. Dronebogus (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure anyone using {{cn}} like that is reading random RSN threads anyway, {{bsn}} {{rs}} and {{dubious}} exist so could just revert and mention one of those instead. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maps should be fine as long as it's a simple interpretation of the map. Working out what percentage of an area is covered by trees could be straying into original research. Also make sure to include enough information for verification, simply using "<ref>Google Earth</ref>" is not enough.
    Which after checking is what is used in Lawriqucha River. This is no different from vaguely waving at the Encyclopedia Britannica and saying it's somewhere on one of the pages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a point and I agree. The use of Google Earth Pro to determine an elevation should identify the precise location for which such information was valid. The two elevations I cited in the article were identified as being Lake Niñacocha and the junction of the Nupe and Lauricocha rivers. I'll take your advice and also include coordinates in footnotes citing Google Earth. Smallchief (talk)
    Think about including enough detail that another editor can replicate what you did, so they can get the same result as you. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are completely unacceptable citations and I'm very surprised this is coming from someone with autopatrolled. You can't even search for "Lauricocha (/Lawriqucha) River" on Google Earth; AFAICT you have to plug in coordinates and then hover over the river to see what the elevation is at specific points. Simple citing this as "Google Earth" is not verifiable, and the choice of which places to report elevation for is OR. JoelleJay (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't anticipate when I asked for opinions that I would be accused of being an ignoramus. Smallchief (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not OR to report that Google Earth provides an elevation at a certain spot. It's like when we geolocate a feature (mountain, town) it picks a very precise spot on the feature but is that the best spot to geolocate is a matter of opinion. -- GreenC 01:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Earth is not "picking a precise spot", the user is hovering their mouse over whichever arbitrary point they choose and noting the elevation that Google is reporting at that site. Citing this as just "Google Earth" does not even provide the reader with a location to validate, and good luck verifying anything if the elevation ever gets updated. JoelleJay (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But if we already have reliably-sourced coordinates for a place (as many articles do), it's not OR to read off the elevation given by Google Earth (or another digital map, or a paper map) for that point. – Joe (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MAPCITE: "It is not original research to extract information from a map". It needs to be WP:Verifiable. This requires a good citation. There is {{Cite Google Maps}}, I don't see anything for Google Earth. Could check with Help_talk:Citation_Style_1. -- GreenC 01:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In-line attribution may help here when no book, map, or other reference is available. At least the data can be juxtaposed with the source. I don't think it is OR since that would be literally when no citation is provided. There are many sources for that here in geohack [98]. Maybe others may have elevation. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is OR since that would be literally when no citation is provided. OR can exist even when a source is provided. This is particularly true when the source provided is a primary source, as it is here. BilledMammal (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia should not be the first place to publish an elevation. JoelleJay (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't be, it'd be published in the form of the map first. – Joe (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not "published". Readers cannot just go to Google Earth's KML release and find a stated "elevation of Lake Niñococha" (which, by the way, is not given as the origin of the Lauricocha River anywhere in the cited sources; the obituary for the explorer who documented the lake mentions he identified it as being the source of the Amazon river) or the "length of the Lauricocha River" or the "location of the junction between the Nupe River and Lauricocha River". In fact, not a single source in our article mentions the Lauricocha River -- not the Quechua-Spanish dictionary cited for the "lauri" part of "Lauricocha", nor the different Quechua-Spanish dictionary cited for the "cocha" part of "Lauricocha", nor the primary 1905 expedition notes that discuss the Marañon River and Lake Lauricocha, nor the research article on remains in the Lauricocha cave that also only mentions Marañon and the lake, nor Google Earth. The Sebastian Snow obit does say "Snow established that Ninococha has an outlet via underground channels to Lake Santa Ana, and from there to Lake Lauricocha"; if these "underground channels" are supposed to be "Lauricocha River" then, beyond the blatant OR in identity, Google Earth definitely cannot be used to measure the "length" of the river whatsoever.
    Does a river by this name even exist?? JoelleJay (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the allegation that there is no such thing as the Lauricocha River, an elementary Google search indicates 610 references to the "Rio Lauricocha" and 210 references to the "Lauricocha River." Amongst these sources I pick only two to illustrate the fact that the river does exist and that it is called the Lauricocha River internationally and in Peru.
    The first reference illustrates the international usage of the Lauricocha River in a 1961 article in American Antiquity which refers twice to "Lauricocha River" near an archaelogical site. The article is on JSTOR at [99]
    The second reference illustrates local, Peruvian usage of the term Lauricocha River. The reference is correspondence and a report between two Peruvian officials citing the danger of landslides caused by heavy rainfall near the "Rio Lauricocha" and the hamlet of Jesús, Peru. See page two of the document which is the first of several references to the "Rio Lauricocha." The document can be found at [100]
    The Lauricocha River is also referred to in sources as the Upper Marañon River illustrating its status as one of the oft-cited sources of the Amazon River. I believe that calling it the Lauricocha River is preferable due to local usage. It's not at all unusual for rivers to have different names in different parts of their courses, especially in isolated mountain areas.
    I would be pleased to provide you additional information. Smallchief (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question was rhetorical... I was just highlighting the fact that there is no evidence of this river in the cited sources. JoelleJay (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Horse Eye's Back who I believe has professional experience in satellite imagery and mapping. JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given this a read through and I don't think this is as much a technical question about Google Earth as a policy/guideline discussion about when reading a map becomes analyzing a map. On the technical side Google Earth does not appear to identify that river, it is unlabeled until it merges with another tributary and becomes the Rio Nupe. I'm sure there are maps out there which do label it though, with one of those I think there would be more of a question here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor clarification. The river below the junction of the Lauricocha and the Nupe rivers is often referred to as the beginning the Marañon River, one of the two major streams which unite to form the Amazon River. Both the Nupe and the Lauricocha have been cited as sources of the Amazon.Smallchief (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then Google Earth is just wrong, they label the river below the confluence at Rondos the Nupe, not the Marañon. Google doesn't call it the Marañon until dozens and dozens of river km later. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is at least a distinction between reading the elevation of a labeled point off a published static map and reading it from something dynamic and unlabeled. JoelleJay (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the use of Google Earth in that article it appears to be WP:OR; Google Earth doesn't state the elevation or, I believe, the length of the river at any point - instead the user has to do original research to obtain this information from it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think simply reading values from a map is the intended meaning of original research (new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves). Google Earth "clearly states" the elevation of any point on the surface of the earth; the original research was what Google did to produce that data. Though I'll give you that measuring a river might go beyond a routine calculation, because of the coastline paradox and the non-trivial work needed to determine which tributary counts as the main one. – Joe (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case it's not simply reading values from a map - since the points of interest are not labelled the editor has to determine the coordinates of those points of interest, and that's where WP:OR comes in. BilledMammal (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My worry about the river length is that the river length is not what is in the article, what the article actual states is the direct line betweem to points. Even if correct this is likely a novel point, unless some other source has ever cared about what the straightline measurement was. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Earth is kind of a scuffed source to use for elevation data. Rather than rehash that issue, though, I will try to help: @Smallchief: I highly recommend TopoView, which the USGS provides as a free service, and lets you see extremely detailed topographic maps going back hundreds of years (which provide tons and tons of elevation data). jp×g🗯️ 05:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see now that the river is in Peru -- disregard my dumbass comment about TopoView -- but I think it's quite likely that the Peruvian surveying agencies have something similar online. jp×g🗯️ 05:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Disregard my comment to the effect of being a dumbass, there are a gigantic number of maps here (with clickable index sheet here). jp×g🗯️ 05:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for giving us a useful source for maps of Peru (new to me, so who's the dumbass?), but Map No. 1550 which would show the course of the Lauricocha River is apparently non-existent in this map series. Other maps of the area exist, but Google Earth is the only source I'm aware of that can be relied upon for reasonably accurate elevations in the Lauricocha region.
    Assuming that we did have a government-issued topo map of the area, would reading said map to determine elevation be considered original research? If not, I don't see a difference between utilizing Google Earth or a topo map as a source. Not everyplace in this large world is going to have an officially-determined and published elevation -- but elevation is often of critical importance in comprehending what a place is like. Smallchief (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that Google does a lot of automated processing of geodata to come up with the layers you see in Google Maps and Google Earth, and because they're fundamentally commercial products, it's not at all transparent about what data and methods it uses or what quality control (if any) it does. For example, for a period of about two years they did something to their algorithm that produced a large, non-existent island in the lake outside my house. By comparison, official mapping agencies use old-fashioned survey techniques that are very unlikely to hallucinate landmasses. I do agree that in some years such high quality maps aren't available or accessible, and there you might fall back on Google Earth, but it's fair enough to say that it's a primary source of last resort. – Joe (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this the best source available? Why not use the source they must be using? Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also if RS do not care, why should we? Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Earth/Maps acquires data from a wide variety of commercial, research and government sources (some free some not) and stitches it all together to create a uniform global map. It's probably proprietary what sources they use which can change depending on many issues, including competitive pricing. Google mapping products are revolutionary. Recommend the book Never Lost Again: The Google Mapping Revolution That Sparked New Industries and Augmented Our Reality (2018), a great story. -- GreenC 22:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps this discussion has generated enough light to reach a conclusion. To use Google Earth as a source for an elevation or location requires adding to the footnote the coordinates of the measurement location. By adding coordinates to the footnote any user may navigate to Google Earth and verify the information. Thus, I will add coordinates to the footnotes citing Google Earth in the Lauricocha River article. This should bring citations of Google Earth into adherence with Wikipedia:MAPCITE. Thanks to User:GreenC for mentioning Mapcite. Smallchief (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not think this is sufficient at all, as the locations you choose to state the elevations for are still OR. The river isn't even labeled on Google Earth! JoelleJay (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, Google Earth isn't an RS. It doesn't meet any of the requirements of RS. It doesn't have published editorial policies, it doesn't do fact checking, it doesn't have a reputation for reliability and accuracy, or for correcting errors. Do we even know where it gets its elevation data? What it does to verify this data? What happens if the data is wrong? And that's without even getting into how an editor knows which point along the river to choose as the elevation point? The idea of editors choosing a point along a river and then writing in Wikipedia that the elevation of that point is the elevation of the river is OR: it's interpreting (likely misinterpreting) a primary source. A river's elevation changes. Do you know what's the highest elevation? The lowest? The average? How would Google Earth determine where a river starts and where it ends? Does Google Earth employ surveyors and cartographers to verify this data? Or does it just combine other data from other sources without checking it? Same with river lengths. Find a better source, a "real" source, like a map published by a cartographer, or better yet, a book that covers the river. Levivich (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have information specifically on the accuracy of Google Earth's elevation numbers, but I disagree with you on several points. The latest figures that I found was that the Geo group in Google (which includes Google Maps as well as G.E.) had 7,100 employees. I'm sure they would be incensed by your assertion that they don't do fact checking. The images and positioning information comes from commercial satellite data that Google buys or commissions. Where I would be less inclined to trust them is for information that requires confirmation on the ground. It's true that they don't have a published editorial policy (as far as I know) but neither do the majority of national survey agencies. Note that lots of articles use latitude and longitude data derived from Google Maps, and I don't think we should disallow that. Zerotalk 02:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do have a tendency to make overbroad generalizations :-) Google would be a fine source for things like US Interstate X runs through city Y, but for any such example of basic geography, it'd be easy to find a better source. I'm sure Google has lots of employees building Google Maps and their GPS navigation, street view photography, compilation of satellite photography, etc., but absent evidence to the contrary, I would not assume that any of their employees are out in Peru surveying the elevation of rivers :-) I think it's safer to assume that Google Earth's elevation data and similar is just repeating the data that Google obtained from some other source or combination of sources, and that, as you mentioned, Google is not verifying that data by actually surveying the location or taking measurements on the ground. Maybe for street view and road navigation in populated places, but not for rivers in the wilderness of Peru, rural US, small pacific islands, etc.
    One indicator of reliability is WP:USEBYOTHERS: do any scholarly sources cite Google Earth for the elevation of a river, or for a particular set of coordinates? I might be convinced Google Earth elevation data was RS if use by others could be shown. Levivich (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know the answer to that question. I just want to say measurement of elevation does not require a survey on the ground. Satellites do that routinely. See this short article for an example. Centimeter precision is possible. The most accurate methods (which can monitor sea-level changes within millimeters) use lasers or radar. Older methods are stereoscopic, see this for example. If G.E. is just reporting one of these professional surveys, it is pretty accurate. Zerotalk 09:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Free (self published?) textbooks

    I'm hoping to double-check my understanding of WP:RELIABLE for these two sources. I believe they are both considered reliable and can be used heavily to verify information about linguistics, but I just want to make sure.

    Although it is definitely self-published, the author of this textbook is an expert in his field who uses this textbook to teach an introductory linguistics class at UCLA. The author has also written a traditionally-published textbook on an overlapping subject (Hayes, Bruce P. (2011). Introductory Phonology. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-444-36013-4).
    It isn't entirely clear to me what controls, if any, eCampusOntario exerts on the content it publishes, so I'm not sure whether to treat this textbook as self-published. Additionally, the final two chapters of the book are labeled as "in progress." A first edition of this textbook also exists (Anderson, Catherine (2018). Essentials of Linguistics), and none of it appears to be in progress, but it advises readers to "consider adopting the much-expanded and revised 2nd edition."

    All thoughts on this are appreciated, —SyntaxZombie (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How would you like to use these sources? Alaexis¿question? 12:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As at least one appears to be an SPS by an expert it may be OK for opinions. The other does not seem to be, and thus is not. Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of these works are written by qualified people. The authors of the second work are listed here. Having more than one author improves reliability because they can correct each others' mistakes. I wouldn't lose sleep over either of these works being cited. Zerotalk 14:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So both pass SPS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The author page does not indicate that their qualifications are sufficient, if it is a self-published source. For most of the authors listed (generally assistant or associate professors), it does not list the sort of publications that tell us that these people are otherwise accepted as experts. It also does not make clear what the authorial processes was, whether these people all collaborated on all parts of the work, or if individual chapters have individual authors and should be judged by that author. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it clearly spells out the qualifications and research field of each author, making it obvious they are individually qualified. As a group they are super-qualified. The acknowledgements section of the book also lists 4 other linguists who "offered pedagogical insight and wise counsel" and 14 other academics who provided "thoughtful reviews and feedback" that "allowed us to make substantial improvements". This is much more peer-review than is normal for the first edition of a book published by a mainstream publisher. In my view it satisfies RS without question. Zerotalk 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It explains that they have PhD in the fields and teach in the fields, but we usually look for significant publications as the indication of expertise, and it only has that for two of them (Derek and Nathan). -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    inf.news

    This website inf.news is a content farm like min.news with (most probably) machine translated articles from Chinese content farms or self-published articles gathered from Toutiao, Baidu Baike or Baijiahao.

    Example is historical article Battle of Lazikou which relies on two inf.news articles (with no editors nor in-article referencing/vetting) and another content farm laitimes as sources If nothing is done to these sources I'm afraid the Chinese articles, which are already not well patrolled on English Wikipedia, are going to be inundated with all sorts of revisionist news and press releases.


    about 200 articles with inf.news article as sources now NoCringe (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    is this source Reliable?

    is this source Reliable

    Vidaković, Nenad (30 April 2012).

    Migracijske i etničke teme (in Croatian) https://hrcak.srce.hr/clanak/121385 7712Touch74396 (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Depends… What do you want to verify with it? Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gamemeca, a Korean gaming source. Reliable?

    https://www.gamemeca.com/

    I've been having a debate on the Ragnarok Online page. And without spewing too much, as I'm exhausted; I'd like if enough people (credible, mods & admins preferred ofc) can verify the validity of this source as it doesn't appear in the source list whatsoever, reliable nor unreliable. However, based off what this site has to offer, they have information on things dating back as far as the early 2000's. 90's even it seems. Articles written in 2002 and stuff. To me, clearly this has been an organization operating for a long time and has plentiful of credible news and sources-to that has been under our radar. Especially under the "Net Power" game magazine section. It's so much history & coverage on gaming and old school MMOs on that site.

    Perhaps others feel differently though? 4ReeZy (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You may also want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources where participants are more specialized about the topic. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, will do.
    Also, could you or someone edit the typo in my subject 'Gamemeca' to -> 'Game Mecca' for me please? Unless ya'll don't mind the typo. I'm not confident in editing pages like this yet. 4ReeZy (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually disregard that. My apologies. 4ReeZy (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The dispute you’re having is not deeply related to the reliability of this source. You should spend more energy there understanding what MrOllie is telling you, instead of reflexively disputing everything he says. (FYI: he has been a Wikipedia editor for 16 years and made more than 200,000 contributions; and Wikipedia does not have “mods”.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a reliable source?

    Is this a reliable source for Wikipedia articles? Will it need attribution, that is, should any sentence I add using that as a source begin with, "According to...... "-Haani40 (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably not. It seems to be entitled "Ahkam Ad-Diyār: Verification of the cause for the ruling upon the Dār" and written by Shaykh Abdul-Qādir Bin Abdil-Azīz and seems to be rulings on Islamic law. However it also seems to have no publisher (unless At-Tibyan Publications is it though it doesn't look like a book) or other provenance so we have no apparent way of knowing whether this is actually by the person (or the publisher) listed. Even if by this person we have insufficient info to know if the person is a reliable source. A lot depends on what you want the source to support (for instance a journal on Kansas agriculture is likely a reliable source for corn production in Kansas but not on high energy physics); this info you can presumably provide. Erp (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks!-Haani40 (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I use this as a Reliable source? [Westminster Institute]

    This publication, on page 6, says, "For the jihadist, spreading Islam and having someone obstruct you in that process is an attack on Islam. Therefore you are already in a defensive posture and nobody has used a gun on the other side. War is thus triggered simply because the other does not want to be a Muslim". Can I paraphrase that sentence and use that publication as a reliable source in the lead of the Kafir article? Will it need attribution, that is, should any sentence I add using that as a source begin with, "According to...... "?-Haani40 (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr Sebastian Gorka will provide jfc 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Published by the Westminster Institute, a nn crank right-wing outfit. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Online, it says, "Westminster Institute is a think tank dedicated to individual liberty, highlighting the threats from extremists and radical ideologies. Located in McLean, ..."-Haani40 (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Online is not useful, who says that? Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am planning to paraphrase it like this,

    While spreading Islam, if anybody obstructs the jihadist, it is considered as an attack on Islam. You are, as a result, already in a defensive stance and the opposing side has not even used a gun. War is therefore started just because someone else chooses not to follow Islam.

    -Haani40 (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not parrot the opinions of political commentators with links to the alt-right as if they are fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, Can I write, "According to the Westminster Institute, while spreading Islam, if anybody obstructs the jihadist, it is considered as an attack on Islam. You are, as a result, already in a defensive stance and the opposing side has not even used a gun. War is therefore started just because someone else chooses not to follow Islam."-Haani40 (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are an RS for what they say, but this might well be a wp:undue issue. Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you want to use this, and in what context? The Westminster Institute is not a notable body or authority, so their opinion on anything is really irrelevant. Canterbury Tail talk 12:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, thus really maybe more of an undue than RS question. Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not both? There are 0 indications of reliability here, it’s the ravings of an ideologue “published” by fellow ideologues. It can both be obviously in violation of DUE and of RS. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not add it if it is undue but can I add it to the Divisions of the world in Islam article with the title. "Views of Westminster Institute" (like I said, I will not add it if it is undue)?-Haani40 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So I guess you guys believe that it shouldn't be used?-Haani40 (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be the case, yes. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The publisher looks very fringe to me, and highly unlikely to have ever been cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources. I'd say find better sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Joining of new clubs in 2024–25 I-League

    Some edits in I-League related to the the joining of Vels FC in 2024–25 I-League have been done by @RIP B1058 . He has mentioned this source in the talk page of I-League which claim that Vels FC will be competing in 2024–25 I-League but there is no notification from AIFF related to this. So is this source reliable? Ritwik Mahatat@lk 13:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No idea whatever source i had i gave ‍—🪦NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 14:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TED Talks (from ted.com or youtube)

    A discussion came up on Talk:Katherine Maher about whether TED talks (from ted.com or youtube) are valid RS —it's not listed on RSP. My gut says "no".

    Con
    1. TedX has no quality standard
    2. TED talks are cliche, coastal, rife with business speak & pseudo-intellectual
    3. the talks don't distinguish fact from opinion or anecdote. Sources are not cited.
    Pro
    1. True TED (not Ted X ) do have an implicit editorial bar for content and speakers, but it's not a journalistic BAR IMO
    2. Speakers often have respectable pedigrees or are notable

    What's your take? Tonymetz 💬 14:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My take is it's the individuals who conduct the TED Talk we should discussing, not the distribution. TED is just a format and there is never going to be a TED talks are reliable/unreliable decision. It's like a decision on if a video uploaded to YouTube can be reliable based solely on YouTube and not the content, or if something on VHS is reliable. Is the individual giving the talk a reliable source? That's actually the question and we already know the answer to that one. Canterbury Tail talk 14:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we use the individual's own content—in this case KM's own Ted talk ? Tonymetz 💬 14:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If an individual is considered a reliable source, then their TED Talk is a reliable source. If they're not then it's not. Canterbury Tail talk 14:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    how about this case? If KM says "i believe xyz" in her Ted talk can we put that in the article? Tonymetz 💬 15:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tonymetz, why would it be WP:DUE? What makes "I believe xyz" of encyclopedic value as opposed to every other sentence in her talk? Schazjmd (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why answer a question with a question. can you give an example? Tonymetz 💬 15:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're interested in the case you can find it here Tonymetz 💬 15:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tonymetz's question is the same I would have. I'm not saying it would never be due but this isn't an example of a typical RS reporting on a topic. It could be due if this were an about self case. That could be a simple factual claim, "I was born in Springfield" or a reply to a controversy covered by a RS, "the X newspaper article about me got the following critical dates wrong..." In general I don't think a TED talk is going to be a likely source for such statements but I haven't seen that many TED talks (despite attending a TED event). It would be possible, if the person is an acknowledged expert, that statements they made in a TED talk could be due (perhaps comments about the design of a moon rocket or, if they were say an official NASA historian, some historical facts about a rocket program). These would have to be case by case examples and presume a better source for the claim doesn't exist. In my rocket example, a fact that can only be sourced to a TED talk is unlikely to have weight for inclusion in the NASA article but might be due in an article about that rocket program. Again, case by case. Springee (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like the question becomes how what was said aligns with WP:ABOUTSELF. Simonm223 (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would treat any TED talk similarly to an OpEd. It's more or less the views and opinions of the speaker. Like a traditional newspaper OpEd there the author gets some style guidance from the editor and the editor decided the author's views were interesting enough to cover. Springee (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I wouldn't use their TED comments to establish weight but they could be used for about self type material. Springee (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ted talks as shown on video are not, to the best of my knowledge, edited after the fact. The acceptance of a Ted (not TedX) talk may be seen as a form of recognition of a speaker's expertise, but it is the speaker, and not the details of content, that are being approved. As such, the talk itself is effectively a self-published source from our perspective. Our rules for self-published sources apply -- i.e., it can be used for topics on which the speaker is recognized as an expert, but cannot be used for statements about identifiable living individuals besides the speaker themself. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i believe they are edited. Tonymetz 💬 15:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TED(x) is probably almost always useless, because almost anyone can sign up to do one at their local university/institution, and I don't think TED Conferences has any editorial oversight over those. TED is decent, and the people who do one are usually notable or almost notable. But I think either fits under the scope of WP:RSOPINION. Cleo Cooper (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we cut to the point? Right-wing news outlets isolated a quote from a TED talk about Wikipedia to make it sound like Maher, now leading NPR, doesn't care about truth. And of course people are trying to insert that into her biography as a personal view about truth rather than, you know, an argument for the way WP:V encompasses multiple perspectives. TED Talks are reliable for the opinions of their speakers, but you also need WP:WEIGHT to include it in an article, and it has to be done in a way that meets WP:NPOV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 10:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems WP:RSCONTEXT would be useful. Reading the Maher talk page it's appears that it will be used to support a quote without context of that quote, also it appears the argument has evolved to now be "Larry Sanger said something". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gamerant

    Is gamerant a reliable source we can use a a reference? They seem to be fact checking, doing their research and writing neutrally Infrabel1 (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability is context dependant, not just who creates it (although who creates it can heavily skew the base position from which reliability is assessed). Gamerant has a publically viewable policy on paid/ad/affiliate content, which indicates it does run such, so any articles with the appropriate disclaimers should be treated accordingly. It has ethics, fact checking and corrections policies. So absent any indication it is not reliable, it would come down to (as the paragraphs at the top of this page indicate, what is the content it is being used to support. Was there a particular article/content that this request was triggered by? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1220394257"