Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

RFC: Electronic Intifada

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

---

What is the reliability of Electronic Intifada?

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

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

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

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

Option 3 If they have no history of retractions or corrections then I would assume there are factual accuracy concerns. Even the best publications make mistakes due to the nature of publishing quickly and issuing corrections after publication. Since no one has disputed Markowitz's important point that the publication has a poor reputation for fact checking I would consider EI not reliable for statements of fact, but potentially citable for expert opinions per Nableezy. Cornsimpel (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  Evidence stands taller with some actual links for verification. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• No consensus. No statements made by the source have been given by the opener of the RfC. What are we supposed to evaluate here? jp×g🗯️ 23:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 - it publishes mostly opinion, and where that opinion is by an expert in the field it should be able to be used. But for its news reporting, it is reporting on other outlets reports. I would say, as I did in the last discussion, that when they report something it will usually be found in other sources, otherwise I place it basically on the opposite end of Arutz Sheva and would not use it as a source for facts. nableezy - 23:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In conclusion, Option 4 is the most relevant, considering EI's published content both historically as concluded in previous Reliable Sources discussions as well as recently as shown above; therefore one assumes that this source meets the criteria of Deprecation. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) This editor has been topic-banned for having most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor in this topic area

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

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

• Option 2 Features section only, anything else only if it is a subject matter expert, and always with attribution. I don't believe that this source is guilty of falsification but some material is fairly heavily biased, so use with due care and attention.Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  Clarifying that means 2 and then 3 (not 4).Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3. They don't seem to do much original reporting. I give them 3 rather than 4 for the odd story that might serve as a useful justification for a statement, but I cannot see that happening very often. Most of their articles seem to be either one-sided reinterpretation of the news reported elsewhere or personal opinions. Epa101 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

😮‍💨 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What do you mean by calling David Miller a conspiracy theorist (coded language in context -'Jews control the media,' the meme runs, being implied),Bob. A tribunal has just rendered its verdict that his dismissal from his university, following a intense media campaign using Jewish student assertions that his lectures on Zionism made them feel uncomfortable, had been improper. It is not controversial that either Israel or communities in the so-called diaspora militate vigorously, networking, to counter any perceived anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian 'bias' (while remaining deafeningly silent about the devastations of occupation, as Peter Beinart protested with anguish on his blog yesterday.) This extends to coordinating in private online groups how to get dirt on critics which is then sent on to their employers in the hope they will be fired, as in the recent Antoinette Lattoufcase. If one notes how endemic this is (per Mearzheimer and Walt's unrefuted academic analysis of Israeli lobbying groups 2006) one is summarily branded as an antisemite or conspiracy theorist. No. It's normal, however distasteful, and has been so since Adam Smith First remarked on it among merchant associations. All groups do it, only some are more effective than others.Nishidani (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC) The regional employment tribunal verdict on Miller's employment status is not relevant to the question of whether or not he is a conspiracy theorist; that fact should be obvious from his articles and monologues on PressTV and in MintPress where he promotes the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry along with several antisemitic conspiracy theories. Your speculation on the extent to which Jews in what you name "the so-called diaspora" lobby is even less relevant to the question of whether EI is a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC) That conspiracy theory claim is bolder then what is currently stated on his biography, which refers only to allegations. I suspect no more is stated there because it is unsupportable in wikivoice. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC) @Nishidani, could you elaborate on what you mean by “ so-called diaspora”? FortunateSons (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Why? What has it to do with EI reliability? Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Depending on the interpretation, it may be an innocuous linguistic difference or harmful speech that may be a conduct issue. Asking for clarification is appropriate in such a case, no? FortunateSons (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Go troll somewhere else. I'll strike that and AGF.Selfstudier (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Good grief. One more fishing expedition to trout for s/flippery evidence before AE that there is an odour of antisemitism sniffable from one word I used. My maternal great great grandmother was half-Indian so I guess that would give me grounds for asserting I am part of the subcontinental Indian diaspora, were I to ignore every other line of my promiscuous origins. Bob. Arthur Koestler and numerous other committed Zionists believed in the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi descent, as you must know having read that article. A huge constituency of Jews are convinced of the truth of a mythistorical fairy tale of their origins (the 'diaspora') in the southern Levant, with the same irrational tenacity and stout neglect of the complexities of real evidence you deplore in Miller, for whom I have no brief. To be convinced, through sheer mental laziness or studied historical ignorance, of a fiction of origins does not automatically allow others to deduce things like conspiracy theories.This is not the place for further discussion on that.Nishidani (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC) I mean your original statement had plausible deniability but you're pretty much saying here that you believe in the pseudoscientific Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry which has an entire section on its use in antisemitism. Even if we assume what you're saying is not antisemitic (the Jews aren't real Israelites!), it's still pretty disruptive to insult peoples' racial identities by calling Ashkenazi Jews a so-called diaspora and their identity a mythistorical fairy tale in a discussion at RSN. I think if I started using terms like so-called Palestinian refugees at every RSN discussion I would get a warning very fast, so I think you should stop using terms like so-called diaspora that do nothing but inflame tensions in this topic area. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Streuth!Did you trouble your time to read any of the pages you allude to? I stepped in to a chaotic Khazars article, caught between editors who crammed it with 'stuff'/newspaper waffle asserting it was nothing but an antisemitic attack on Israel's legitimacy, and editors who pushed the idea its 'truth' left Israel's reputation in ruins. I rid the page of all of this to-and froing polemical bullshit mostly by people who flaunt their politics but apparently couldn't give a rat's rectum for real history, and wrote the summation of the abundant high scholarship on that empire which you see now, including the historical details of the way antisemitic nutters used it to attack Jews, a fringe view. And for doing that,-2months of focused reading on a topic rather than hanging round kibitzing airily on talk pages- I'm now anti-semitic? It is intolerable that across numerous pages, many editors who should know better but who apparently have no argument, or informed historical knowledge, play the cheap antisemitic card whenever Jewish related topics are touched on and, attacking the presumed hidden motives of others, dispose of them, and serious scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Let's stay on topic here. Nishidani's talk page would be a better place for this conversation, if it really must be had at all. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Option 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 4 per Longhornsg. It's too biased and unreliable to be used. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Per @Marokwitz. Dovidroth (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)This editor has been banned for having most likely made proxy edits for a banned editor in this topic area
• Option 4 Biased, unreliable, advocacy website. Coretheapple (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Hell no, for the reasons expressed above. Neutrality^talk 23:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 per @Nableezy. Yr Enw (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4: Biased website with blatant activism. Let'srun (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 One of the last American sources defending basic human rights. Fakecontinent (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This isn't really a good argument for its reliability. We don't use sources just because they're perceived to be on the right side by some. — Czello ^(music) 12:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Just realised this user has been blocked as a sockpuppet – striking comment consequently. — Czello ^(music) 12:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Had an edit conflict doing the same. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4 for being quite obvious activism. As one of the comments in the article's reception section says, it "is too biased to be of much use to mainstream publications". That includes us. — Czello ^(music) 12:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 per the arguments given by @Nableezy and @Selfstudier. Where they are only publishing opinions of non-experts then we should consider that they would be WP:GUNREL, but don't we already have Wiki policy on that already? Where they are publishing the the words of subject matter expert, I think we shouldn't limit ourselves from being able to use the source with attribution. TarnishedPath^talk 13:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4 as I may be the resident 'expert'(if that is a positive or negative may be in the eye of the beholder), I have some thoughts:

The good

a) rarely, there are genuine subject matter experts writing for them, and there may be an argument to be made to exemptions in those cases (most notably, Ilan Pappé, who is certainly a controversial historian, but also definitely an expert in his field) if the source is depreciated (credit goes to @Nableezy who mentioned it first)

b) rarely publicise orignial content, such as No Search, No Rescue

The bad (in no particular order):

a) an effectively minimal standard for media reviews, making it only not significantly more selective that a blog. As mentioned by others, it is effectively a blog and should not be used as way of establishing notability.

b) poor quality of research, reporting, failure to correct or retract stories that did not substantiate, poor sourcing, and aggregation of information from other unreliable sources as facts

c) other issues discussed at length above, particularly by @Longhornsg, @Chess (who voted 3, but I would consider this to be an argument for 4), and @The Kip), @Homerethegreat@Bobfrombrockley, @Marokwitz and others, to whose expertise I will refer for the sake of length.

The ugly

a) aggressive advocacy

b) associations with people who can reasonably be described as antisemitic under some modern definitions

c) lack of an apparent editorial process or failure thereof

d) not used by RS for Bias (per @Czello)

Recommendation

1. Depreciate the source, but potentially allow an exception to be made for experts in accordance with common sense

2. If it is found to ‚only‘ be unreliable, it should not be used for anything even tangentially related to Israel-Palestine, Jews/Judaism/Antisemitism, contentious topics and generally not be used for facts except in very limited circumstances governed by common sense with the exception of 1.

Additionally, using them to establish notability is not appropriate and should be avoided at all costs. FortunateSons (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4 Electonic Intifada spreads truther conspiracy theories, like denying the Oct. 7 attacks. The Washington Post recently covered it: "An Electronic Intifada article from November also argues that “most” Israeli casualties on Oct. 7 were perpetrated by the Israeli army, basing the story, in part, on a YouTube clip of a man who describes himself as a former Israeli general." Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  While the claim you mention seems implausible, it should be noted that given that the events of October 7 remain an uninvestigated black box, the objection here is simply to an assertion that the burden of proof is yet to weigh. Reliability arguments with a view to deprecation must be based on demonstrable and repeated misleading factual errancy, typically in combination with evidence of a source's lack of repentance when the truth comes to light. I see neither aspect in evidence here. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Note that the Washington Post doesn't link to any article on EI that actually argues "that “most” Israeli casualties on Oct. 7 were perpetrated by the Israeli army". That is because they can't. To put it bluntly: WP lied. The closest is an article [27] that claims "The latest revelations confirm The Electronic Intifada’s reporting since 7 October that many – if not most – of the Israeli civilians killed that day were killed by Israel itself". Which is quite different.

  And I agree with Iskandar: "the events of October 7 remain an uninvestigated black box": EI have asked for an independet international investigation, but Israel vetos that. Huldra (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 or 3. We don't really have an option for this, but I'd support not using it anywhere for anything except WP:EXPERTSPS and for sources that are cited by experts in scholarship (which I think would all be EXPERTSPS anyway but I'm not 100% sure). I think that means "not reliable, except for exceptions," which could be categorized as 2 or 3, I'm not sure which is more appropriate.

As for reasons: first, scholarly contributors. Ilan Pappe is a contributor to E-I, for example: [28]. That's the only name on the list I recognize (because I'm not that well-read), but I bet if we went through the list one by one we'd find Pappe was not the only bona fide historian on that list.

Second, it seems to be well-cited by historians. I searched my little pile of scholarship, and E-I is cited by: Pappe, of course, also Nur Masalha, Rosemary Sayigh, Nadim Rouhana, Areej Sabbagh-Khoury, and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, among others.

So in sum, I see the problems that are raised by others as legitimate problems, but the fact that this publisher is contributed to and used by so many scholars convinces me that we should not deprecate. Levivich (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a good solution. The list of contributors actually includes a lot of experts who we might want to cite (e.g. Refaat Alareer, Joseph Massad and Steven Salaita, as well as respect commentators (e.g. Budour Youssef Hassan, Patrick Strickland). However, (a) I suspect the material they publish at EI is lower quality than that which gets published at other outlets, and (b) it's noticable that this list is extremely old: most of these names have not published there for years, and practically none of the commentators on the front page now are listed there. Looking at the front page now, I see for example Bryce Greene, a Substack blogger whose career highlight to date was giving a Russian propaganda pitch about Nordstream at a UN meeting;[29] or Mohamed Elmaazi, who worked for Sputnik until recently and also writes for TheCanary.[30] So we need a solution that enables us to cite genuine experts when puplished at EI, while excluding the conspiracy theorists and fringe bloggers. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2: I am persuaded by Iskandar323's comment; the 2018 RfC had some irregularities, and attribution is the existing policy and more appropriate solution for managing the citation of biased sources. As TarnishedPath comments, non-expert opinions are already handled by other policies. Articles from published subject matter experts need not be marked against by an over-broad GUNREL assessment. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4. "Intifada" in the title is a dead giveaway. The reasoning above by Marokwitz and others is persuasive. Not a hard call, especially for a source that will be used for contentious topics. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Figureofnine: Sorry, what exactly is it, persuant to source reliability policy, that having "Intifada" in the source name is a dead giveaway of? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3. None of the arguments presented for deprecation make the grade. Arguments on the basis of bias misunderstand the relationship between bias and unreliability in wikipedia policy. Of course this is an advocacy site and it should be treated with the same caution that all advocacy sites are treated. Zero^talk 01:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4. Reviewing this source it has habitually published falsehoods, from when it was first created. For example, they repeatedly (1, 2, 3, 4) claimed that Palestinian officials had not claimed that 500 people were massacred at Jenin; this is demonstrably false.

Below I have also presented a separate example, where it claims that every Jew has two citizenships, one Israeli and one in their own country - the level of falsehood in this claim is staggering, ignoring both the long-term sustained presence in the Palestine region of Jewish people prior to the formation of Israel, and the plight of the Mizrahi Jews who lost their citizenship to countries like Syria and Iraq when they fled or were expelled. BilledMammal (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

That is not what the article says. And your personal outrage about some column is not and has never been a criteria for deprecation. nableezy - 02:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

That is not what the article says. Assuming you are referring to the second article, it says every Jewish man and woman can have dual citizenship, one in their own country and one in mine. BilledMammal (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

And you wrote it claims that every Jew has two citizenships. And that is about the Law of Return. nableezy - 02:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

That's splitting hairs; you're right I mistyped, but the difference between "eligible for two" and "having two" is effectively irrelevant in this context, with neither of them making her claim any more accurate. BilledMammal (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It kind of is relevant because you only really have dual loyalty if you are a citizen of two countries. It's a clear misrepresentation either way (many countries don't allow dual citizenship and it implies Jews in Israel have a country of origin they can go back to), but it's not the blatant anti-Semitic canard it would otherwise have been if it said all Jews do have dual loyalties. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Even if it weren’t accurate it’s an opinion piece and nobody is inserting that opinion as fact in our articles, making that another example of cherry picking opinion pieces the cherry pickers don’t like to attempt to remove the articles by experts in the field they cannot otherwise challenge. nableezy - 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Even if it weren’t accurate? Are you saying that it might be accurate?

it’s an opinion piece That's not clear to me. It's not labeled as an opinion piece, and while it reads as one so does every article on that site. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

A leading question is an odd way to reply to somebody saying your point is entirely irrelevant and need not be examined past its irrelevancy. nableezy - 14:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

These are rather weak examples to support deprecation, which is a very severe classification.

"The level of falsehood in this claim is staggering" Really? The full paragraph reads: "Everything — home, heritage, life, resources, hope — has been robbed from us [the Palestinians] to atone for Germany’s sins. To this day, we languish in refugee camps that are not fit for human beings so that every Jewish man and woman can have dual citizenship, one in their own country and one in mine [Palestine]."

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, any reader with a base level of understanding could be reasonably expected to understand that the writer in the bit you quote if referring to the law of return. A claim that "The level of falsehood in this claim is staggering", really is hyperbole. TarnishedPath^talk 23:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Option 4 Per BilledMammal and others. This extremely slanted source has no value whatsoever here. Toa Nidhiki05 02:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Options 2/3.'I occasionally read EI, but have never used it on wiki. I read it because quite often its articles cover that extensive terrain of the otherwise extensively unreported realities of the conflict studiously ignored by the 'mainstream', and this alerts one to what is missing in articles. Very occasionally I find incisive articles, some written by its founder, which turn out to anticipate what has been diligently ignored, but which emerges in mainstream reportage after weeks or a month. I don't use that, but I think the option for such selective citation on those rare occasions, should be allowed. In this conflict's general mainstream coverage, glossing over or passing over in silence an abundant number of facts relevant to Palestinian perceptions of these realities means the facts we prioritize are those that tend to lend greater weight to the Israeli narrative' experience of the conflict. Newspapers are not very factual except in the kindergarten sense of the word. One should remind oneself at times that in the undertow of any fact, one will find the gritty shingles of a theory implied by it, to misquote Keynes.

So one duly, on such occasions, digs deeper to find a glimmering of more authoritative sources following up a trail you often cine on EI. Deprecation is ridiculous. Reliable source arguments are very tricky here. We privilege the factual, yes, and advisedly that is our priority. But mainstream sources don't cover much of what goes on. One could not write a neutral and balanced article on this conflict, for example, by using our dominant RS here The Times of Israel,Jerusalem Post,Ynet and even Haaretz mostly, for the other side to the conflict has been, if we are to believe critical Israeli analysts, virtually disappeared. Elisheva Goldberg,What the Israeli Public Doesn't See Jewish Currents 7 February 2024. Nishidani (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2/3 per Levivich, exceptions to unreliability for subject matter experts used on the website means we should not deprecate, plus it is used by historians, so clearly it has value, and per Nishidani, it offers a valuable POV which is easily absent given systemic bias here. starship.paint (RUN) 08:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 They are biased, one has to be careful with that and attribute them. But I don't see them as particularly manipulative which can cause real problems with biased sites. To see what manipulative means see [31], that inclines me to give them an extra green flag for the service they did for Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 (secondary: Option 3). A problem with Wikipedia's reliable sources-criteria, is that they are absolute. IMO, how reliable a source is, is connected with how close its POV is to what it reports. And reporting their opinions, is different from reporting their actions. Ie., I would never take Arutz Sheva reporting on either Hamas opinions or actions to be 100% correct. But if Arutz Sheva reported that such and such an Israeli settler leader said "whatever", I would take that to be probably correct. However, if Arutz Sheva reported on Israeli settlers actions, well, at least to me it seems as if AS' premise is that all Israeli settlers actions are justified, and/or harmless. (Same for, say Tehran Times or Jerusalem Post: some areas you can presume them to be correct, others not.).

Since EI is used as a source for many academic scolars (see above), Option 4 seems draconian. If wikipedia chooses option 4, well, then "Being more Catholic than the Pope", is an expression that comes to mind, Huldra (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. There is obvious bias and the normal considerations about such sources (e.g. attribution, better sourcing, BLP) apply, but there isn't evidence of publishing outright falsehoods or similar issues that would require deprecation. Subject matter experts are an obvious exception that should be allowed, which they would not be under deprecation. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 - The source is biased, but it also publishes the opinions of subject-matter experts, scholars and researchers, which are useful for WP. Ijon Tichy (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2-ish. First of all, EI is very clearly biased. That oughta be taken for granted by everyone just based on the title. Second, their list of contributors is linked in an above comment, and it includes respected experts like Ilan Pappe and Joseph Massad alongside cranks like Max Blumenthal. So I think that in addition to a note for bias we should say that reliablility should be determined mainly by the author, because it appears that while EI absolutely do publish respected subject matter experts, and I'm convinced by the above evidence that they are doing some sort of editorial fact-checking, I'm less convinced that they're doing enough of it to qualify as fully reliable even given their biases. Loki (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I should also say because this was an issue in the first closing: I'd be fine with Option 3 but I explicitly oppose Option 4, and see it as worse in this case than Option 1 (which I also don't see as acceptable). Loki (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4 Terrible title for an relatively new on the block organisation and seemingly gets worse from there. scope_creep^Talk 12:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Scope creep: The title is not a policy-related reason for anything, and your note only gets worse from there. What do you mean 'new on the block'? EI has been around since 2001. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

One more thing, is there a way to distinguish opinions from news published by the EI? E.g., is this article an opinion piece or news [32]? Here are some of the quotes from it (a) But we are to believe the Israelis had no idea [of the October 7 attack that] was planned right under their noses? They probably knew. And they waited for it., (b) The vast network of Zionist organizations acts as appendages of the Israeli state that extend into all our lives around the world. Alaexis_¿question? 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have reopened this discussion per my closure at WP:AN here. The original close was There is a consensus in favor of deprecating this source, as most all participants voted options 3 or 4, those who voted 4 strongly advocated their position, and few option 3 voters differentiated their position from those favoring deprecation Mach61 (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

There have been multiple attempts to claim the title of the source makes it supposedly obvious that this cannot possibly be a reliable source. Im sorry, but is it the Arabic or the fact that the word used is "uprising" make it so obvious? EI obviously has a perspective on the Arab-Israeli conflict but when exactly did Wikipedia become about suppressing significant views that people dont like? And when did claiming the usage of an Arabic word make it so that a source was by that virtue alone unreliable? nableezy - 23:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that it's the fact that the word is "Intifada", in a context which connects it to events such as the Second Intifada - it would be like naming a source "Electronic Stürmer". BilledMammal (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

And there it is. Thanks for that. Intifada means uprising. The first and second Palestinian uprisings are among the more well known, and they absolutely are not codewords for anti-Semitic propaganda. But thank you for laying that bare for all of us. nableezy - 00:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

For a source to closely associate with mass terror attacks against civilians raises questions at the very least. In addition, I question your comment about anti-semitism having briefly looked at the comments by some of the contributors to EI, both on and off the site.

For example, Susan Abulhawa has spoken in support of the antisemitic Boston Mapping Project, and she has denied that the Second Temple existed on Temple Mount.

On the site, meanwhile, we see what I interpret as her expressing antisemitic tropes when she says Everything — home, heritage, life, resources, hope — has been robbed from us to atone for Germany’s sins. To this day, we languish in refugee camps that are not fit for human beings so that every Jewish man and woman can have dual citizenship, one in their own country and one in mine.

Here, she assigns collective guilt - and not to Israeli's but to Jews generally - and she raises the specter of dual loyalty. Further, it is factually false; for example, those Jews who fled or were expelled from countries like Iraq and Syria lost their citizenship and have only Israeli. BilledMammal (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

to closely associate with mass terror attacks against civilians raises questions at the very least what an absolutely absurd claim. Again, intifada means uprising. The first intifada was largely nonviolent civil disobedience, the second had that and violence on both sides. Your claim that EI closely associate[s] with mass terror attacks against civilians is risible and any closer should discard any vote that relies on such bogus logic entirely. Your BLP violation that a living person is expressing antisemitic tropes is likewise risible, and no she does not raise the specter of dual loyalty, nor is she assigning collective guilt to Jews but rather singular guilt to Israel (in fact a few sentences later she writes "Israel is not Judaism"), she raises the fact that Jews from anywhere in the world are entitled to citizenship in the land that her father was expelled from, at the point of a gun at that. Your BLP violation should be redacted, and if it isnt you should be sanctioned, and your argument should given the weight it deserves. That would be approaching 0. nableezy - 00:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

If EI had been founded prior to the Second Intifada, I would agree with you - but it was founded during the second, which was predominantly characterized by mass terror attacks on civilians - that raises serious questions about the nature of the source.

If I had said she was antisemitic then that would be a BLP violation, but my understanding is that it is not one to raise concerns that an article she wrote expresses antisemitic tropes - for it to be so would effectively prevent us from ever discussing whether a source expresses such tropes.

Further, regardless of whether that article expresses antisemitic tropes it is indisputable that it contains false information. BilledMammal (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

predominantly characterized by mass terror attacks on civilians - false. Doubly so at the time of Febuary 2001 when it was founded as a regularly updated website, having existed less formally from at least December 2000. If I had said she was antisemitic then that would be a BLP violation, but my understanding is that it is not one to raise concerns that an article she wrote expresses antisemitic tropes - false. You wrote, as a statement of fact, that a living person expressed antisemitic tropes. I see no reliable source that backs up that claim, and your tendentious portrayal of the source to claim she does do that does not justify you accusing a living person of a racist act. You are misrepresenting a living person's words to claim she said something racist. You do it with no source backing you up at all, and you do it in an attempt to claim that having a pro-Palestinian name is the equivalent to having a Nazi one. nableezy - 01:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a stretch of the BLP policy. If we require reliable secondary sources to identify a source as being racist, we'd be unable to critically evaluate fringe sources on those grounds as most reliable sources don't spend their time covering publications such as the Electronic Intifada. Arguably, designating an article by someone as "unreliable" is a contentious label applied to a living person by this standard. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

He’s identifying a specific living person for having supposedly made a racist statement when they aren’t even accurately portraying that statement. And yes you need reliable sources to make claims of serious misconduct by living people. nableezy - 04:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

2nd Intifada started Sep 2000, EI was launched in Feb 2001, what mass terror attacks on civilians occurred in between? Levivich (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point; I hadn't considered when during the Second Intifada the publication was created - I consider that to address my concerns over the name chosen. BilledMammal (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Guys if an electronic intifada breaks out in the Electronic Intifada thread, arbcom might start passing "resolutions". Levivich (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Billed Mammal. Since the issue is whether or not to deprecate EI in terms of the issue of factuality, you should get your facts right. You correlate EI's foundation with mass terror attacks on civilians, assuming that the civilians here are Israeli.EI arguably was indeed established in the wake of mass 'terrorist' attacks on civilians. So I refer you to the 2nd para of the section 'Post-visit Palestinian riots' (a hopeless pointy header) on our Second Intifada article, the judgment by HRW on who were being shot at from helicopter gunships, the bullet statistics re Israeli 'crowd control' techniques in the first five days, and Jacques Chirac's outraged remonstration to Ehud Barak about the extreme violence employed by Israeli forces against demonstrators, all captured on video, on that inchoate occasion. In short, the word 'civilian' can, you know, occasionally refer not only to Israeli victims but also to Palestinians, the overwhelmingly majority of whom belong to that unarmed category.Nishidani (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Is NGO Monitor a reliable (but obviously not unbiased) source regarding statements about NGOs and the BLP associated with them?

There are (mostly old) discussion before, but the source came up in the Discussion on this noticeboard about Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor and was characterised as biased (which, in my opinion, is accurate). I would like to incorporate some of them into the article on the org, insofar as that is appropriate. I believe that it can be used, where necessary with an attribution, as it is generally considered reliable enough to be cited by significant parts of MSM, many of the involved people are subject matter experts and they generally cite specific sources and examples. Does anyone disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Per reliable academic sources, I would consider NGO Monitor an unreliable source for statements about NGOs and associated BLPs. Multiple sources published through academic presses and periodicals characterize NGO Monitor's assessments as politically motivated, lacking full editorial independence, not conducting sufficient investigation to substantiate their claims, at times reporting inaccuracies, and having a pattern of singling out groups with perceived political differences rather than focusing on the substance of the alleged problems.

• Michael Edwards, foreword to NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Innovations, eds. Lisa Jordan and Peter van Tuijl (Routledge, 2006): Examples of such attacks include the NGO Watch project at the American Enterprise Institute, the Rushford Report in Washington DC and the NGO Monitor in Jerusalem, all of which single out liberal or progressive groups for criticism while ignoring the same problems, if that is what they are, among NGOs allied with conservative views. It is no accident that hostility to NGO involvement in global governance forms a key element of neoconservative thinking in the US. Stronger NGO accountability mechanisms won't do away with politically motivated attacks like these, but they would surely help to expose them for what they are. (viii, bolding added)
• Joel Peters, "Israel", in The European Union and the Arab Spring: Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in the Middle East, ed. Joel Peters (Lexington Books, 2012), 77–92: In recent years a number of right-wing groups in Israel, most notably Im Tirtzu and NGO Monitor, have launched high-profile campaigns with the aim of delegitimizing the activities of Israeli civil society and human rights organizations, especially those that advocate the rights of Arab citizens in Israel and/or address the question of Israeli violations of human rights in the Occupied Territories. (86, bolding added)
• Yasmeen Abu-Laban and Abigail B. Bakan, "After 9/11: Canada, the Israel/Palestine Conflict, and the Surveillance of Public Discourse", Canadian Journal of Law and Society 27, no. 3 (December 2012): 319–339: NGO Monitor has been characterized by Israeli academics as "right wing", as well as selective in its focus on NGOs; in particular, it ostensibly looks at NGOs concerned with human rights but fails to seriously investigate the activities of NGOs that support illegal activities in the occupied West Bank. (333, bolding added)
  • Abu-Laban and Bakan in particular identify NGO Monitor's propensity for inaccuracy in its descriptions of the basic planks of other NGOs, such as claiming Canadian ecumenical organization KAIROS supports BDS when at the time it explicitly did not encourage boycotting Israeli products: while NGO Monitor claims that KAIROS is a "primary supporter of the anti-Israel divestment movement", KAIROS denies it. In fact, in its "FAQs" online, KAIROS states that its position since first discussed in 2005 is that "KAIROS does not recommend a general boycott of Israeli goods for a number of reasons. (335, bolding added)
• Sara Kalm, Lisa Strömbom, and Anders Uhlin, "Civil Society Democratising Global Governance? Potentials and Limitations of 'Counter-Democracy'", Global Society 33, no. 4 (2019): 499–519: However, in all its reports, the NGOs that are criticised for being biased and partial have a perspective of promoting Palestinian human rights and/or taking a critical stance toward Israeli Government policies vis-à-vis Palestinians. Thus, the NGO Monitor appears to be promoting pro-Israel views regarding the conflict in a partisan way. Therefore, the organisation cannot be claimed to express universalist views, as it promotes a highly parochial perspective, mainly promoting Israeli interests. [...] Although the organisation claims to be independent—there has been accusations about strong ties between Gerald Steinberg, who is the founder of NGO Monitor, and powerful actors in the Israeli Government. [...] In terms of independence, there seems to be strong evidence pointing to that NGO Monitor might be less independent than it claims and indeed tied to strong political interests and actors. (516–517, bolding added)
• Ron Dudai, "Entryism, Mimicry and Victimhood Work: The Adoption of Human Rights Discourse by Right-wing Groups in Israel", International Journal of Human Rights 21, no. 7 (2017): 866–888: The goal of such pro-state entryism can be demonstrated most powerfully by NGO Monitor's recent practice of submitting 'shadow reports' to the UN human rights system. Shadow reports are among the most common and important tools of human rights NGOs: while governments submit their formal reports to UN human rights monitoring bodies, obviously seeking to portray a positive image, the practice of shadow reporting allows human rights NGOs to bring to the attention of these bodies independent and less flattering information and interpretation. Israel's human rights NGOs often make use of this tool. NGO Monitor's shadow reports however contain nothing but positive information about Israel, not seeking in any way to question Israel's formal submissions. In effect, they provide shadowing not to the state’s reports but to those of the other NGOs. (871, bolding added)

Assessments such as these from academic sources lead me to conclude that NGO Monitor is not a reliable source for statements about NGOs and associated BLPs. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on the claims regarding unreliability? Their bias is pretty clear, but as far as I can tell, there is no higher frequency of errors than with many newspapers considered reliable.

As this is an activist org (such as the one discussed above), it is obviously not fully independent, but many newspapers aren’t either, and as far as I can tell, there is no sign of a higher degree of bias than shown by many other comparable orgs.

By my cursory reading, there were historically some instances of poor reporting, but not beyond the usual level for comparable org, and not beyond what was shown for EMHRM, which appear to be acceptable with attribution?

Im pretty new, so it’s possible I missed something, but a (high) degree of bias is not a direct hindrance to being an RS, right? FortunateSons (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

While sources having some biases isn't necessarily out of the ordinary, the overall impression I get from academic sources is that NGO Monitor is not only particularly biased (rather than just somewhat biased) but moreover lacks independence from the topic it often reports on (by which I don't just mean it's founded by Israelis, but moreover Kalm, Strömbom, and Uhlin's analysis which finds compelling the connections between NGO Monitor and the institutional Israeli government) and is prone to mischaracterizing organizations. While every editor has a right to make a cursory reading of a source/sourcebase, I'm inclined to base my position on these academic assessments made by trained scholars with a lot more experience in the subject area than me. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

In terms of independence, there seems to be strong evidence pointing to that NGO Monitor might be less independent than it claims and indeed tied to strong political interests and actors. is (as far as I can tell) not entirely untrue, but it refers to Steinberg being a man who, at least for a period of time since its founding, was closely affiliated with the Prime Minister’s Office. Source (from the other end of the political spectrum). This sounds biased (which isn’t in question), but I don’t think it’s more unusual than many other political organisations are. As much as the “revolving door” personally annoys me, it is also the norm, and a venn diagramm of consultants, professors and activists would have more overlap than I like, but it is also a fact of life. Is there a more specific issue that I missed? FortunateSons (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I think these assessments from trained academics, published in peer-reviewed publications, carry more weight than the personal, lay assessments you or I are capable of. I continue to consider NGO Monitor unreliable for statements about NGOs and affiliated BLPs. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Political scientists and journalists argue about the independence of biased sources all the times, which is a normal (and good) part of scientific discourse. It is considered reliable enough that others, including AP and other major publications, cite it, so such an (in this case, very reasonable) argument towards authority does generally hold water in both directions, so I investigated their claim.

In this specific case, Kalm, Strömbom, and Uhlin base their analyses on two sources: „ Although the organisation claims to be independent—there has been accusations about strong ties between Gerald Steinberg, who is the founder of NGO Monitor, and powerful actors in the Israeli Government”. It cites a guardian article, which does not contain any of the relevant keywords and concerns another group, and „Mandy Turner, “Creating a Counterhegemonic Praxis: Jewish-Israeli Activists and the Challenge to Zionism”, Conflict, Security and Development, Vol. 15, No. 5 (2015), pp. 549–574“, which in Footnote 119 links what I have cited above as proof regarding the lack of independence: Yossi Gurvitz and Noam Roatem, ‘What is NGO Monitor’s Connection to the Israeli Government?’. +972 Webzine, 29 April 2014. Available at: http://972mag.com/what-is-ngo-monitors-connection-to-the-israeli-government/90239/[Accessed 23 July 2015]. Based on their writing, it appears to be their political reporting, which I would consider accurate but biased unless proven otherwise (left wing mag, good reporters). However, that does not appear to be significant enough unless we are willing to discount a very long list of orgs, certainly after the time frame where that relationship terminates (otherwise, we would have to depreciate every article written by a current or former politicial consultant, staffer etc.).

If this is the case, I would genuinely appreciate if you re-assessed your view regarding the source; if (which is quite possible) I missed something, I would greatly appreciate if you took the time to correct me. :) FortunateSons (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

By way of aside, Kalm, Strömbom, and Uhlin's citation of the Guardian article doesn't strike me as strangely as it apparently strikes you. It's about another group, yes, but the point of the citation is to place their assessment of NGO Monitor in the context of an existing literature about Israeli institutional actors redefin[ing] what was once seen as tolerable, but albeit bitterly contested, dissent – the reports and critiques of Israel's human rights organisations – as a form of intolerable and existentially threatening delegitimisation. Kalm, Strömbom, and Uhlin's Global Society article is, I would remind, a secondary source which incorporates the three authors' own research and expertise as observers of organizations like NGO Monitor. If they were writing a Wikipedia article, we would expect every claim to be summarizing a verifiable source; but they didn't write a Wikipedia article. They, as academic researchers, have the training to synthesize literature from other writers with their observations to make the kinds of analytical claims that go beyond what a Wikipedia article would say in Wikipedia's own voice.

In any case, my view is based not only any one isolated example from the published literature on NGO Monitor but on the impression I get from the balance of academic sources. I respect your interest in my perspective on this. At the same time, I'd appreciate it if you accept that you haven't convinced me to change my mind. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The guardian citation is fine, I just wanted to clarify that it is not directly related to the question at hand.

I understand that you disagree and trust their assessment, and appreciate the good faith discussion, even if I believe that the researchers view does not diminish the reliability of the source and therefore chose to respectfully disagree with you. Thank you for taking the time. FortunateSons (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons, what exactly would you like to add to the article about the EMHRM based on the NGO Monitor? In general, I would suggest to use less biased sources. If some information is only reported by the NGO Monitor, it might not be WP:DUE.

A bias doesn't mean they are unreliable. The quotes above mostly confirm their partisanship and only one mentions an inaccuracy, so it's hard to understand whether it's a one-off or systematic problem. Alaexis_¿question? 12:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that they are biased. The article linked to questionable reporting about things like organ theft and statements by associated people that one can reasonably argue are antisemitic under modern definitions of antisemitism. I would have added them, probably as „NGO Monitor, (a Jerusalem-based NGO), argued that X was Y.“ You can find examples of the discussed things above in the discussion on EMHRM, if you are interested in writing them yourself :)FortunateSons (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss the DUE weight of statements later, but as long as this is ongoing, I am not really interested in pre-writing and sourcing a statement that I might not even be able to include on the talk page. FortunateSons (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It certainly has come up before. If one puts "NGO Monitor" into the search box at the top of this page for the archives you'll find a whole load of them. I've only gone through a few but they were very dismissive overall. One comment I saw said calling it reliable is like saying Electronic Intifada was reliable - and that has been deprecated. Perhaps someone else can go through the lot and get an overall opinion about reliabiliy. I definitely think its very biased views mean its opinions should be assigned little or no weight. NadVolum (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, their bias is clear in my opinion, and pretty undisputed as far as I can tell; they are right-wing and Zionist (in the literal sense of the word). However, considering the debate we just had on EMHRM, I would think that they should be in the same category; they both have bias and some questionable statements, but NGO Monitor is cited by RS and should therefore be considered equal or better (but obviously attribution is still required). FortunateSons (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Putting a respectable NGO and NGO monitor in the same basket? Don't think so. Monitor is a trash operation spewing out endless Israeli propaganda, one merely has to look at the complete crap they wrote in respect of 6 NGOs declared illegal by Israel and for which Israel was widely condemned. Extreme bias makes the source unusable. I would accept the equally biased views of its founder as a source because they theoretically qualify as an expert and at least then we have a name attached to an opinion, can form a judgement of it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, that isn’t really an objective argument. Bias is not really an argument if it doesn’t interfere with the facts, and they are right wing, but not fringe beyond what many left wing sources are. If you agree that the creator is a subject matter expert and that they are regularly quoted by RS, I don’t think that one can really disagree with being biased but reliable unless you can show a pattern of poor reporting beyond bias. FortunateSons (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I just did, read the linked article. And it is not just bias, it is extreme bias (which is a reason to question reliability, if not deprecate). I don't understand the last sentence. To reiterate I accept the creator as an SPS and afaics, NGO monitor is a good candidate for deprecation, since we have had many discussions, I think converting this one into a formal RFC might be the way to go here. Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

And it is not just bias, it is extreme bias (which is a reason to question reliability, if not deprecate).

With all due respect to you, I seem to recall you coming to a different conclusion regarding EI and Mondoweiss despite their bias being extreme as well. As someone who’s been in favor of GUNREL/deprecating biased sources on either side of the conflict, the least I can ask for is logical consistency. The Kip 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a key difference. NGO Monitor's output is written by NGO Monitor. Mondoweiss' output is written by the authors of its articles, some of whom are respected experts. I'm not in favor of citing Mondoweiss editorials (for facts, especially), but the articles it publishes should be judged on the expertise of their authors. So actually I am completely consistent. Zero^talk 01:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Which is a different issue entirely than the predictability of output that you cited below. Yes, Mondoweiss primarily publishes op-eds from individual authors; however, just like NGOM’s content, those op-eds have an extremely predictable bias to them.

I’m simply tired of users’ opinions/votes on sources developing entirely from what side of the conflict said source backs, and this applies to sources and users on either side. If a source overly favors one side of the conflict it’s probably not reliable, this shouldn’t be hard. When a user supports downgrading one source because of bias but opposes doing so for a biased source in the opposite side, I have the right to question if general bias (versus the user’s opinion) is the real concern.

And before I myself am inevitably accused of favoring one side, you can see that I’ve voted for GUNREL below after voting for GUNREL/deprecate on the Palestinian-biased EI/The Cradle/Mondoweiss while advising against using the Israeli-biased i24 and JNS as reliable sources in two non-RfC discussions. Again, it’s not hard. The Kip 16:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason to use them. They are more akin to one of those think tanks employed to say global warming isn't happening and it is too late to do anythng about it and it is good for agriculture and it is a Chinese plot. NadVolum (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

That isn’t really true. You can disagree with their claims, but the statements are generally fact-based FortunateSons (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually it's a good description. They can only be called fact-based if the facts always point in exactly the same direction. A source with entirely predictable output is worthless. Zero^talk 14:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, I seem to recall you coming to a different conclusion regarding Mondoweiss despite their outcomes being rather predictable as well. The Kip 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The tobacco industry and suchlike tried to avoid outright falsehooda too. Have a look at NGO Monitor on Amnesty International [33], Medicis Sans Frontieres [34], the ICJ [35]. Does factual really cover them? NadVolum (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify which of the statements is false? They provide links their sources, and while they obviously cover things in a way that is in line with their bias, I can’t find anything where they have claimed something to be true which isn’t in the 3 links you provided. Their interpretation is obviously their own and biased (which is the reason that policy requires that such claims be attributed), but I can’t find anything that goes beyond biased into falsehoods. If they have a pattern of blatant misinformation like most depreciated sources do, it should be easy to find, right? FortunateSons (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

So do you think "Amnesty disproportionately singles out Israel for condemnation, focusing solely on the conflict with the Palestinians, misrepresenting the complexity of the conflict, and ignoring more severe human rights violations in the region." is a reasonable statement like any investigative journalist might make? Or its bias is just something that can be ignored? Or how about "In practice, however, MSF consistently abuses its status as a humanitarian organization to launch venomous anti-Israel political campaigns." or "ICJ is active in lobbying the United Nations promoting false, distorted, and unverifiable allegations against Israel."? NadVolum (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s complicated, but I certainly disapprove of the way it is being said.

stricken for being off topic

In this case, I believe the answer for this issue to be fully covered by the policies of Wikipedia: we attribute claims to biased sources, don’t use our own voice in controversial cases, and make a reasonable effort to verify information when it appears to be fishy.

After all, we (as in all Editors) figured out religious disputes, military conflicts, and complex ethical debate. I think we can trust each other to differentiate between posturing and a specific claim being made about an NGO, don’t you? FortunateSons (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not complicated; it's complete crap and a joke source. "ICJ is active in lobbying the United Nations promoting false, distorted, and unverifiable allegations against Israel." - just laughable. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding „unverifiable allegations“: that may be my personal frustration, but all sides are currently doing that this and I find it highly annoying when doing research. The people (even scientists and journalists) stating assumptions as facts when talking about topics in the fog of war (unless someone secretly works for an intelligence agency with a very high clearance, in which case, go right ahead) are the bane of my existence. FortunateSons (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

NGO Monitor is cited by RS. Is it? I'm looking now and (excluding unreliable sources such as Electronic Intifada and Israel Hayom) this is what I see:

• extensive citations in Jerusalem Post[36][37][38][39] and a couple in

Jewish News Syndicate[40][41][42]

• Ha'aretz noting one of its employees was banned from editing Wikipedia in 2013[43]
• a 2014 controversy during which the Washington Post reported that AP had not cited in for several years,[44] after a former AP reporter claimed there was a ban on using it there[45] (but note David Bernstein of Volokh Conspiracy did describe them as a usable source in WaPo in response.[46]
• A 2016 op ed in Al-Jazeera attacking them for bias and misrepresentation[47]
• +972 ridiculing it[48][49]
• rival op eds in a Canadian Jewish outlet[50]
• a 2018 news article in EUObserver that starts "Former Israeli diplomats have accused NGO Monitor, a right-wing pressure group, of sowing misinformation that undermined EU efforts on conflict resolution."
• a 2021 op ed in the NYT that describes "a campaign, spearheaded by the Israeli government (with support from groups like NGO Monitor and UK Lawyers for Israel, which pursue these Palestinian groups in court and have been accused by advocacy groups of disseminating disinformation), targeting civil society organizations that monitor and resist Israeli human rights violations, including the continuing expansion of illegal settlements."[51]

In conclusion, two right-wing RSs use them; lots of others see them as unreliable. I'd say we could mention their opinion when secondary usage in e.g. Jerusalem Post shows it's noteworthy; otherwise avoid. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a biased source that needs to be used with care, if at all, as its use could easily be WP:UNDUE due to its partisan nature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, thank you FortunateSons (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• As per my prior opinions re: EI, the Cradle, JNS, etc, I’d personally avoid using any outright biased sources with regards to anything in the I-P CTOP are regardless of “reliability,” and in that case that includes NGO Monitor. If it absolutely needs to be used, don’t do so without attribution. The Kip 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would personally only use it for background on individuals and orgs with controversial views, and not generally use them for notability as such and breaking news.

  However, they are ‚useful‘ (if you get over the language) when it comes to statements made and reports published, as even very questionable statements and reports are often ignored due to the sheer quantity of content in the digital age. FortunateSons (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think "background on individuals with controversial views" would be the worst possible use, as BLP material requires extra high quality sourcing and this is the opposite of that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  That makes sense. Insofar as the source is reliable (which is the question at hand), I would argue that verifiable claims (such as public statements or statements made online) would be acceptable, right? FortunateSons (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• It gets tricky, though, doesn't it? Plenty of clearly high-quality sources on I-P issues (including some of the most commonly cited ones, like Al-Jazeera and The Jerusalem Post) have what could reasonably be described as outright biases. It's not uncommon for sources closest to the conflict and which, therefore, produce some of the best coverage, to also have outright biases. Ultimately what matters is their reliability - whether that bias is sufficient to harm their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. To me, the most alarming thing here is the fact that they claim more independence than they actually have - if true, that is a fundamental falsehood that makes them hard to use as a source. For outrageously slanted sources there are also WP:DUE issues - when a source's coverage is too slanted, then what it covers or doesn't cover has less significance, making it likely to be undue; and even when they cover factual things, their opinion about what is important carries little weight for our content decisions. "Source that always without question advocates X is advocating X in this particular context as well" is just not something that is generally going to be due without a secondary source - we wouldn't end every article with Carthago delenda est just because we have a cite to Cato the Elder connecting it to the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your response! Yeah, it’s pretty complicated. There was a pretty long discussion above, that I believe can be summarised as „we are not sure“ when it comes to questions of independence. I believe to have found the original source by following the citations and consider it mostly harmless, but my counterpart in the discussion made excellent points and provided good sourcing, so I think it’s still up in the air.

  Regarding WP:DUE, I agree that it is pretty complicated and will (as I/P does) lead to long discussions on talk pages. However, some of the most „outstanding“ claims, such as (in the thread on EMHRM) a chairman of an NGO allegedly downplaying sexual assaults is probably DUE at least a sentence.

  Would you consider them reliable (but biased, as you said) unless there is convincing evidence that they are not independent? FortunateSons (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The default for sources is that they're unknown, leaning towards unreliable. A lot of people above have fixated on the question of whether their bias renders them unreliable, which misses the more basic question - what reasons do we have to think that they are reliable? I mentioned Al-Jazeera and The Jerusalem Post, say; while they're biased, there's massive amounts of high-quality WP:USEBYOTHERS and secondary coverage indicating that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Where's the corresponding reputation here? I feel that this is a common problem when discussing sources that are known for their bias and nothing else - people get derailed into the fact that WP:BIASED isn't automatically disqualifying and miss the fact that it allows sources that otherwise have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to be used despite their bias. If the only thing the source is known for is its bias, and nobody has written anything positive about it at all, then it's unreliable because it lacks the reputation that RS requires. (And beyond that the WP:DUE issue remains, so I probably would avoid citing it in any place where it's the only source, especially for anything WP:EXCEPTIONAL - which is probably the only situations people are likely to want to cite it anyway.) So if you want to argue it is reliable, I would search for at least some positive coverage or WP:USEBYOTHERS to counterbalance the obviously-negative coverage above; even if the sources above don't outright say it's unreliable (and therefore wouldn't be disqualifying if it clearly had a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy otherwise), a source where the only available coverage is negative is not a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

If I understood you correctly, you are looking for cases where a reliable sources cited them or their spokespeople? With a quick search, I have found:

AP (1) AP (2) AP (3), also NYT (1) NYT (2), and BBC (1) BBC (2) and also others [1] [2]. Is that enough, or should I look for more? FortunateSons (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

From this list, the Reuters piece uses it as a source for facts (giving its claims similar status to the NGOs it's attacking such as B'Tselem).[52] The BBC and AP examples, however, are all of it (or its spokespeople) being used as a source of opinion, suggesting its opinion is occasionally noteworthy, but not that it is reliable for facts. I can't see the WaPo and NYT examples behind the paywalls, but can I ask what they are using it for, facts or opinion? My take-home is that we might want to include its opinion via RSs, but that we don't have much reason to use it as a reliable source for facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time. The links below are without paywall, and are IMO.:

NYT (1) mostly opinion related to the value of another NGOs actions

NYT (2) is Kind of both, but also a statement regarding causality, so I would say its partial

WaPo ascribing motives to others, 70% opinion, 30% statement of fact.

(Assessments are my own, please feel free to verify.) What do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It's an overtly biased pressure group in favour of Israel. I don't see evidence they're not independent, but they're still pretty clearly on one side of the conflict. They're not a news organization and like Amnesty International, their claims should be covered by other sources to assess if they have WP:DUE weight. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Have we got an example of page of NGO Monitor we might possibly use as a citation on Wikipedia? NadVolum (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I would absolutely avoid NGO Monitor. It's not just biased and partisan; it's an attack dog dishonestly posing as a neutral monitor. It regularly distorts material it quotes. I don't think it's the case (as suggested above) that it's used as a source by mainstream sources - it might be used as a source by right-wing tabloidy media such as Fox News or the Daily Mail, but I don't recall it being seen as a source of facts by serious outlets. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I made a short list of citations by RS above FortunateSons (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry I missed that. I'll look now. I just did a systematic search of Google News and found two RSs using it and several others criticising it, pasted above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you check whether to include the ones I found as well? FortunateSons (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

My opinion of NGO monitor is strongly influenced by the way that the organization has manipulated Wikipedia using paid staffers. In particular one staffer who had no qualms about making COI claims against a target of Gerald Steinberg [53] while failing to disclose his own, much worse, COI. [54]. And then, to make it worse, lying about it. He utilized an elaborate strategy to pad WP articles with NGO monitor talking points.(clearly described by Nomoskedasticity in “additional comments” [55]). It was disgusting. I can’t think why anyone would consider an organization who would stoop this kind of underhand behaviour a reliable source. “A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”? No, we have direct evidence of exactly the opposite. Slp1 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the reliability of NGO Monitor?

What is the reliability of NGO Monitor?

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

RFCbefore is above, there have been several discussions in the past.Selfstudier (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey (NGO Monitor)

Option 3 but only because we shouldn't deprecate right off the bat. It is clear from the above discussion that this source is not at all reliable for facts. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 per my contribution to the discussion above, describing it as an attack dog dishonestly posing as a neutral monitor and noting that it its opinions are occasionally quoted by RSs meaning its views might sometimes be noteworthy, that the Jerusalem Post and some other outlets have used it as a source for facts, but that other sources explicitly call it unreliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 per my contributions above. Made by a subject-matter expert and cited by RS such as NYT, AP, Reuters etc., but also has a right-wing bias and shouldn’t be used without attribution. For BLP, claims regarding facts should not be used unless a source/link is explicitly provided. FortunateSons (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 NGO Monitor is a partisan activist organisation that masquerades itself as a neutral monitor. It's only usable for their own opinions, but even then it would very likely be WP:UNDUE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 This is a propaganda outlet and nothing more. I can't see that it is to be used a source for anything. --Te og kaker (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 "ICJ is active in lobbying the United Nations promoting false, distorted, and unverifiable allegations against Israel."? I don't see how one could use any page in it for a citation. NadVolum (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 per FortunateSons. JM (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, and I only don't !vote for 4 because the trend of deprecation has been to the detriment of the project. This organization began as a one-man outfit for publishing lies and evolved into a multi-person outfit for publishing lies. Nothing positive can be said about it. Zero^talk 08:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You dwfinitely make a point okay. I would not have deprecated the Daily Mail or the Sun, I think I'll stick with deprecation here though. NadVolum (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 per my votes on EI, Mondoweiss, etc. GUNREL’ing unreliable sources on a CTOP shouldn’t be difficult, but certain groups of users seem only interested in doing so to sources that disagree with their perspective. The Kip 16:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 FortunateSons' statement is reasonable. use with attribution, caution in biographical articles. ValarianB (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. Per my contribution in the discussion above, the balance of of reliable academic sources independent of NGO Monitor indicate that the way in which it's partisan and partial results in distorted assessments of the NGOs it purports to monitor and but has led to inaccuracies. I was also very persuaded by user Aquillion's comment in the above discussion about WP:USEBYOTHERS. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, based on the evidence presented in the discussion above. It's not merely biased, like an editorial publication can be. Its primary purpose is to attack other people and groups, from a frankly extreme PoV. That makes it unusable from a WP:BLP standpoint. The allegations of ties to political actors (P-Makoto's list of academic sources) and allegations of spreading misinformation (BobFromBrockley's review of media outlets) make it worse. Only voting "3" out of respect for the norm of avoiding deprecation as the first step. DFlhb (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 - the definition of a propaganda outlet, including having had paid employees editing Wikipedia entries to insert NGO-Monitor press releases. When their views are noted by some other reliable outlet then perhaps there is discussion on including them in our articles, but as a source itself? It does not have any noted experts in any field publishing on their webpage, so the comparisons to other sources that do publish such experts is lacking, this is purely a propaganda outlet with no redeeming qualities to use as a source in an encyclopedia. nableezy - 22:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, could you explain why the founder is not considered an expert? FortunateSons (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, and the Wiki Page includes a list of people, I can’t find a current list but I think some of them can be considered legal experts etc. Can you find a current link? FortunateSons (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 per P-Makoto and DFlhb. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4. While I am also reluctant to go straight to deprecating a source in most cases, Slp1's comment above proving that NGO Monitor has attempted to manipulate Wikipedia should be enough to get them put on the spam blacklist. I also see ample evidence that they are not only unreliable for facts but actually specifically generate misinformation, which IMO is the standard for deprecation. Loki (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 NGO Monitor is a propaganda mill that publishes blatant falsehoods, and should never be used as a source. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4. I might have gone for just unreliable, but the attempt to manipulate coverage on Wikipedia is the sort of thing deprecation exists for. Additionally, there are allegations that they were banned from even being quoted in the Associated Press; while the AP denied that there was a formal ban, it seems likely that they were specifically noted as a poor-quality source. --Aquillion (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2'. Like FortunateSons says, it is biased but it is also curated by subject matter experts and is cited by RS. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 or Option 4 I would consider it unreliable for facts. It is meticulously demonstrated by other editors that this organization does not have a good reputation factual accuracy. Cornsimpel (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

OAS Panel of Independent International Experts

In 2018, the Organization of American States set up a Panel of Independent International Experts to analyse the commission of possible of crimes against humanity in Venezuela (press release, executive summary and final report).

Is the report a reliable source to use in the Guarimba article? NoonIcarus (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment More context on the dispute can be seen here: Talk:Guarimba#Tags. The panel was made up of three experts: Santiago Cantón, Irwin Cotler and Manuel Ventura Robles. WMrapids has argued that since Irwin Cotler was a lawyer for opposition leader Leopoldo López, the source might have a conflict of interest and not have due weight. Cotler was also Nelson Mandela's lawyer in the 80s and a Canadian MP. The disputed content can be found at this diff: [56]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• It's a primary source, so very likely to need attribution if we are talking about anything even vaguely controversial. If there is criticism of the source, it is likely to be WP:DUE as well. Of course, it is impossible for us to say whether it is reliable unless we know the specific claim. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the OAS is not a neutral body, so any claims attributed to it will often need to be presented with counter viewpoints. It made a lot of untrue claims with regards to the Bolivian election of 2020, for example, so care is needed with anything it publishes. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

CEPR (a pro-Maduro thinktank) in turn, despite its academic veneer, is not a reliable source for whether OAS is reliable. Many of the claims of inaccuracy in this text are simply false. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Several sources reached the same conclusions, including the European Union, and the OAS reaffirmed the report, so it isn't widely accepted that the claims are unture, let alone that this is a systematic issue for all the reports by the OAS.

Even if this was the case, this RfC is about a Panel of Independent Experts, not about the OAS Bolivian election report. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The New York Times investigation also found clear errors in the OAS behaviour, as you must know. The OAS is a political organisation, and its committee is selected and paid for by them. We would also attribute statements by the EU on anything remotely controversial. Attribute it, or don't use it. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The New York Times article also cites experts who believe that the conclusions were correct, so my point stand. In any case, I agree that attribution can be included. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I would say this could be used with clear attribution, but I would not use it to source statements in wikivoice. Ostalgia (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, has the Panel's findings been used by other sources? Is there journalistic or academic endorsement or criticism of it? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@P-Makoto: Absolutely. Back in the day it was a big headline because it was seen as a precedent for the current investigation in the International Criminal Court (ICC): ([57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67]), and it was the first time that the OAS did something similar. Former ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo was involved with the audiences, and after published the report has been cited by both the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela[68] and the ICC.[69] Just a few months ago, the ICC approved the Panel to submit an amicus curiae to the Court.[70][71][72]

The Venezuelan government expectedly condemned the report, calling it a "grotesque media farce",[73] and Max Blumenthal from The Grayzone questioned why situations like the one in Israel weren't investigated.[74] Incidentally, Blumenthal also questioned Cotler for being a lawyer for Leopoldo López. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

And they attribute the report too when they cite it. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Red Ventures

What is the reliability of sites owned by Red Ventures (excluding specific sites listed below)?

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

This proposal came up at a recent discussion of ZDNet [75]. While Red Ventures itself has been infrequently discussed [76] prior to this RfC, sites now owned by it have been frequently discussed in the past, such as CNET, ZDNet, Healthline, and others. For the purposes of keeping this RfC clear due to Red Ventures' enormous reach, this applies to content published by sites during the period of time they were owned by Red Ventures, so pre-acquisition content would be exempt. This RfC also excludes the following sources as they were previously discussed at WP:RSP:

• WP:CNET, WP:MREL since being acquired by Red Ventures in October 2020, unreliable after November 2022
• WP:HEALTHLINE, deprecated
• The Points Guy, blacklisted and split between WP:MREL and WP:GUNREL.

It also excludes sources sold by Red Ventures in 2022 to Fandom as they were identified in the previous discussion as possibly needing an exception due to frequent use/not spending that much time under Red Ventures. Examples include Metacritic, TV Guide, and Gamespot (which are considered generally reliable at WP:RSP and WP:GAMESOURCES). However, this RfC would apply to ZDNet and Lonely Planet as of the time they were acquired by Red Ventures. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Red Ventures)

• Option 3. Publications acquired by Red Ventures have come to WP:RSN and have usually been declared as generally unreliable or below. WP:CNET was declared unreliable in 2022 after Red Ventures began filling with AI-generated content, WP:HEALTHLINE was deprecated as being frequently filled with misinformation, and The Points Guy is blacklisted due to abuse. JPxG observed in this thread that ZDNet currently has an article up on "the best Linux desktops" [77] [78] that has notes from the editor still in the article. In addition, the editor did not identify multiple factual inaccuracies and the article is apparently republished every year with the same URL. [79] ZDNet also publishes articles from StackCommerce about great deals on StackCommerce's website, which are not declared as sponsored content. [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] Other articles are declared as paid content though,[86] which leads me to believe ZDNet is intentionally failing to declare StackCommerce ads as paid content.

This appears to be Red Ventures' modus operandi. They acquire sites with good search engine optimization (SEO) scores, then cut costs by using AI to generate a bunch of content for affiliate marketing on the site. Futurism has identified that Red Ventures uses this strategy across many of their properties such as Bankrate. [87] [88] The Verge also has a good explainer on their editorial process,[89] and adds that Red Ventures pressures journalists at CNet to give better reviews.[90] We shouldn't repeatedly put the onus on editors to prove that Red Ventures ruined a site before we can start removing it; they can easily buy or start another. I think we should look at the common denominator here, which is Red Ventures, and target the problem (a spam network) at its source.

I'll also add that the reason I included so many exceptions in this RfC is because on a pragmatic basis it will be easier to deal with the special cases in the future, rather than now (this avoids a potential WP:TRAINWRECK). It's not because I think all of the exceptions should be treated differently and I don't think this RfC should be seen as closing the door for further discussion on those sources. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Red Ventures' official policy going forward is also to avoid disclosing AI-generated content.[91] According to the Director of SEO at the company: "Disclosing AI content is like telling the IRS you have a cash-only business," so we can't trust them to disambiguate AI-generated content from non AI-generated content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've been convinced that this should be limited to web content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 Between the AI-generated and often blantantly inaccurate content, as well as the SEO/sales/marketing-oriented output, and the decisions previously made regarding CNET and The Points Guy, a fairly easy blanket GUNREL. The Kip 19:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. I don't think it makes sense to categorize Lonely Planet as unreliable because some other company owned by Red Ventures did something very stupid. I think that this is jumping the gun: it feels like something should be done, and this is something. Frankly, categorizing an entire outlet as unreliable because one writer or one editor craps the bed is an overreaction; doing so because someone at a different outlet owned by the same parent company crapped the bed is medieval. jp×g🗯️ 21:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  @JPxG: It's not just one writer/editor. Lonely Planet also uses AI (their system is called Trill) to generate content for affiliate marketing. [92] [93] Specifically, the system takes images from influencers and generates "bookable content", which Lonely Planet then gets a commission off of. This is very similar to what CNET and The Points Guy do. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  I should add (I found this while doing more research) that the New York Times did an expose on the AI-generated travel guide industry in August last year. [94] They ran guidebooks through an AI detector and found that the Lonely Planet guides had "next to no chance that they were written by A.I. generators." So, they don't seem to be generating their guidebooks with AI, but they do generate some kind of content with AI. It should also be noticed that according to messages leaked by Futurism, Red Ventures' subsidiaries are encouraged not to disclose AI-generated content. [95] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  By definition an "AI detector" cannot reliably detect whether content is written by a large language model (as the LLM could use the detector like an oracle machine), so this New York Times claim should be taken with plenty of salt. — Bilorv (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 but I'd prefer option 4 if possible. It's high time for it. Enough is enough: if it's owned by Red Ventures, we need to go ahead and identify it as a hard WP:RS fail. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think Option 4 is going to run into technical snags with the edit filter. The way the filter works is by checking urls and evaluating them against a regex to see if they're deprecated. Since the websites were (largely) fine before Red Ventures, we can't exactly deprecate the sites and slap on the filter in the same way. It might be possible if these websites were to include a datestamp in their urls, but they don't, so we're not going to be able to add them to filter 869 as we would with other deprecated sources. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 but not opposed to Option 4. Highly questionable and effectively not usable in most cases, particularly if they intend to go forward with not disclosing AI content.FortunateSons (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. The RfC's need to outline multiple exceptions is an indication that "owned by Red Ventures" is too slippery of a category. We can have RfCs for individual outlets as they come up. It certainly makes sense to point out Red Venture's pattern in future discussions about sources they purchase, but attempting to target Red Ventures while simultaneously acknowledging that this isn't actually wholly consistent and doesn't apply to some outlets that have been under Red Ventures ownership strikes me as liable to be confusing. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Personally, I think we should deprecate Healthline because I think even if we designate Red Ventures as unreliable, Healthline is health-related and should be considered even less trustworthy. Metacritic has always been algorithmically generated (we're usually citing it for its review aggregation) and the other sources in 2022 got sold off around the time CNET started dropping AI-generated content. I don't think any of their content right now should be considered above generally unreliable, but other editors might feel differently. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• No. It should be uncontroversial that whatever the pattern of parent comapany's recent acquisitions, sources at RSN-RSP are evaluated individually on their merits. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  The problem with this is that the parent company pushes the same editorial policy across the entire organization. It's a network of spammy websites and by the time we designate one they already have another. If we ban BestColleges.com [96] Red Ventures can simply start Thebestschools.org. [97] Or they can just switch to OnlineMBA.com [98] or Nursejournal.org. [99] All of these sites have similar content creation policies (generate SEO-optimized content with AI for affiliate marketing) and they all have the same reliability issues because of it according to Futurism.[100] If we have to have a discussion for every site Red Ventures owns, we'll die a death by a thousand cuts, because they have dozens of sites like those four just in the education sector alone. The content is made by most of the same people and has most of the same problems as they're all owned by the same company that does the same things. We should treat them the same as we do other spam networks that show up to RSN. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard somebody say on an already-ridiculous noticeboard. Do you seriously think that a media holdings company is creating subsidiary companies for the sole purpose of skirting Wikipedia source deprecations? Is this a joke? jp×g🗯️ 03:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  @JPxG: Maybe I wasn't clear enough and I apologize. Red Ventures' actual concern is Google et al catching on that their content is AI-generated and blocking the site. They're not trying to skirt Wikipedia deprecation, but they start/acquire sites, fill them with garbage, and by the time Google and others catch on, they've moved on. And as a volunteer project we're very far behind the curve.

  It's not that Red Ventures creating subsidiary companies for the sole purpose of skirting Wikipedia source deprecation, it's that by the time we get around to deprecating a source because everyone else has realized its shit, Red Ventures will already have a new thing ready. And this is inherent to the structure of Wikipedia because of how much credence we give to reliable sources judging other reliable sources (e.g. WP:USEBYOTHERS). Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3, Red Ventures has perverted everything under their purview and we don't actually have a requirement that sources are evaluated individually despite multiple editors claiming that we do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 Support a blanket ban of all Red Ventures sites, per my comments in previous discussions. But I think a more reasonable cutoff date would be 2022, similar to what we do with CNET. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  If we're blanket banning, maybe it's better to do option 4 to get an edit filter? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know how that would work with a cutoff date (i.e. I don't know if it is possible for an edit filter to detect when an article was published). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 per much of the above. JM (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 as per above. Red Ventures poisons everything it touches. Cortador (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 They're so bad editore should need to explain why they use a link but I would oppose general deprecation. If some bit seems able to resist the overall fungus growth a RfC can be raised to say it is a more reliable. NadVolum (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 per many above. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. I'm a bit skeptical that the print editions of Lonely Planet post-2020 have evidence of problems with them; they seem to be the same sort of thing as they were before the acquisitions. And those sources are useful; there's at least one GA on transport that use Lonely Planet guides (Driving in Madagascar), and it can be quite hard to find detailed English-language coverage of transport in (for example) the former French African colonies. I think that we shouldn't be overbroad when dealing with the publisher merely because of problems with some of their online content.
  I understand the issues with several properties owned by Red Ventures, but there is zero evidence that these sorts of issues have moved to Lonely Planet print guides—even a fairly detailed and independent investigation by The New York Times, as Chess has admitted above, found no evidence of AI use in such guides. As such, I think that this RfC is overbroad in its scope, and I think that the lack of nuance here would be harmful to our ability to create good articles going forward.— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• No, per Red-tailed hawk. Already, we use RSP as a broad - often excessively broad - brush, with no room for accessing individual articles within sources for reliability. This is a step in the wrong direction, making that brush even broader with no room for accessing individual sources for reliability. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3: I find the evidence here compelling but deprecating is clearly impractical in this instance. But I would exclude print content, in particular from established brands such as Lonely Planet. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• 3 for websites. GUNREL still gives us the opportunity to evaluate specific cases. JoelleJay (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2: editors should be made aware (through RSP) of Chess's research and the risk of undisclosed AI use in any company owned by Red Ventures. However, given the breadth of sources this incorporates I would prefer to be more conservative in setting precedent. It may be that these issues only exist in web sources or under a particular CEO or in a particular time period or for certain companies where Red Venture has rolled out its AI apocalypse. In the case that there is consensus for option 3 (which I would prefer to no consensus), I would remind editors that reliability is evaluated with respect to a particular fact and so a "generally unreliable" company can create a source that is reliable for some facts. — Bilorv (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3: Basically same reason as BobFromBrockley and User:Red-tailed hawk, the websites should be regarded as generally unreliable, but print versions are fine. I don't think this exception makes this RfC invalid. Theepicosity (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 4 (online websites affiliated with Red Ventures): Per arguments provided in the survey. Red Ventures company has a declared policy of producing AI-generated content in the articles of their online websites. The online websites of the "Red Ventures" are unreliable. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• No basically per jp×g. Evaluate sources individually, don't evaluate owners of sources. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Red Ventures)

Let the record reflect that "a permanent and open-ended blank-check deprecation of all websites and companies in whom a majority ownership is owned by this specific firm" is an obscene, authoritarian overreaction that goes far beyond even the most wildly expansive interpretation of what this noticeboard is set up, or within its remit, to do. Deprecation is already not a policy: it's something we made up on the spot to get rid of the Daily Mail in 2017, on the basis that the site had been so bad in so many ways for so many years that we needed to bypass our existing policies for an exigent emergency.

Now, seven years later, we want to set up a system for the indefinite future in which we deprecate dozens of websites, pre-emptively and without any evidence of their doing anything untrustworthy, on the basis that they get bought by a company that at one point owned a different website that had something bad on it? I realize that the stuff that's happened is annoying, and we want to "punish" them in some way, but Wikipedia is not a means for owning the libs or punishing our posting enemies or doing callout posts on venture capital firms. These may be noble goals, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. If we find it "too hard" to individually evaluate entire websites before making blanket bans on their use, well, maybe it is just "too hard" to edit Wikipedia and we need to take a break.

The idea that Red Ventures is going to try to "get around" a deprecation or a "judgment" by making new websites is total fantasy. Media companies, in general, do not exist for the purpose of being listed as reliable by Wikipedia, and they definitely do not exist for the purpose of being listed as reliable by an unofficial club of Wikipedians who maintain a list of what sources are reliable. The idea is risible: what proportion of traffic on a news site comes from people clicking links to that site in the references section of Wikipedia articles? A hundredth of a percent? A tenth of a percent? Do we have some fantasy where the Red Ventures guys see that they've been deprecated on Wikipedia, break into a sobbing fit, and tearfully promise repentance? I don't think they give a hoot -- it's just going to make it even more difficult for editors to write articles. We do not have an "guilty until proven innocent" system for allowing people to link to websites in article citations, and we should not try to create one out-of-process because we are mad online. jp×g🗯️ 04:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I addressed the idea that this is a mechanism to 'punish' Red Ventures above in another reply, so I won't repeat it here beyond to say that what you're saying is not how I intended my argument to come across. But re: to the idea that this is unprecedented and an overreach, we blanket ban collections of websites that share editorial teams all the time. Dotdash has a special entry at WP:RSP, and so does the WP:EPOCHTIMES as we deprecated all sources owned by that group including NTDTV and Kanzhongguo. We've done the same for WP:RT.COM. In cases where a larger organization enforces the same editorial policy on multiple purportedly independent websites, it's understood that they can be treated as a group as we're ultimately judging sources largely on their editorial policy.

When the stated editorial policy of Red Ventures is to fill websites with AI-generated content regardless of if its reliable, we shouldn't have to care about their convoluted organizational structure. It's the same people running the sites with the same content-creation tooling (their euphemism for AI) on the backend and that consistently combines to create unreliable content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The content of our articles should be determined by the quality of the sources that are available to write those articles. I am in favor of noting that the sites mentioned in this RfC should be used with extreme care (and that articles published on them after the implementation of these new editorial policies should be generally avoided). However, I am strongly opposed to preëmptive deprecation of sources that haven't done anything improper. This presumes a whitelist model of sourcing acceptability, which is emphatically not the way that this project has worked for the last twenty-three years.

There is no policy- or guideline- consistent basis for saying "this source is deprecated because we couldn't be arsed to look at it in detail". If we can't be arsed to look at something in detail, why would that RSN discussion matter more than a hypothetical situation in which somebody wanted to use a source in an article and was overruled by it?

The Dotdash entry says that there was no consensus on the company as a whole, and has a very long "notes" section detailing individual discussions (with differing consensi) on each of the sites in question. There is not consensus to give Dotdash a scarlet letter that immediately taints all companies it buys.

Conversely, with the other examples you give (Epoch Times, NTDTV, Kanzhongguo, RT), these are outlets in their own right, that have obvious direct editorial control over their subsidiaries; the subsidiaries being unacceptable for sourcing is obvious from the fact that they don't have any independent existence from the parent, and never did. The thing being proposed here is much more ambitious: we're trying to probe into corporate governance.

To get a little more down to brass tacks: what does it mean for a company to be "owned"? A majority stake? By shares? By class of stock? A majority stake of voting shares? Does owning 40% of a newspaper's stock mean you own the newspaper, if the rest of the ownership is split between different shareholders and none of them have more than 40%? What about the same situation, but your stake is 20%? What distinction do we make between portfolio companies, subsidiaries, and business units? What degree of integration or subordination between levels of executive management has to exist for us to say a company is really just a different company in a hat and trench coat? These aren't really questions that an encyclopedia should be in the business of determining. They should not determine the content of Wikipedia articles. We should judge sources based on whether the sources are good or bad. jp×g🗯️ 17:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

First off, I haven't !voted for deprecation for the reasons that you and others have gave. Blanket-banning isn't the right move here. Going by the rule of WP:GUNREL, the standard is 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. Saying "most cases" gives us the ability to postpone where to draw the line in the grey area later. Much of your argument is that "deprecation is bad" but that's not what most people have called for at this discussion.

While I can see your point that this isn't analogous to Dotdash, I still believe that this is very similar to RT or the Epoch Times. As you said, the problem is with those outlets that have obvious direct editorial control over their subsidiaries and their lack of independence from the parent group. This is the same situation as Red Ventures; except Red Ventures is managing things at a higher level. Go read the article from Futurism about their policies: [101] They have the same guy (Lance Davis) that is the Vice President of Content for Financial Services for for CNET as well as its sister sites Bankrate and CreditCards.com. According to Red Ventures themselves, "He is responsible for overseeing and reviewing editorial content and is a member of the newsroom," And the editor in charge of their AI-generated content (Cameron Hurta) is the same person for all Red Ventures properties.

Red Ventures is not an organization that owns distinct websites with different editorial teams. While CNET and ZDNet used to be independent tech news websites, they are obviously not anymore. Red Ventures is a highly integrated company that has the same people creating unreliable content on all of their websites. As much as they try to avoid showing that in public, this is a fact that is supported by the consensus of reliable sources. If we're judging sources by whether they're good or bad, Red Ventures is with limited exceptions bad.

And in response to your last point about "brass tacks", you're splitting hairs prior to those issues being a problem. If we discover Red Ventures sites in the future that don't have these issues or don't neatly fit into this discussion, we can easily have another discussion at RSN. But from what I can see, most of their websites have the same issues, and I don't think we should start edge case poisoning the general point of the RfC by dealing with the possibility of a Red Ventures subsidiary having multiple classes of shares before that is shown to exist. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Chess: I'm re-reading the RfC prompt, and I noticed that you stated this applies to content published by sites during the period of time they were owned by Red Ventures (emphasis mine), but you mentioned Lonely Planet print guides in this comment. Are you seeking to have those included in this RfC, or merely seeking to discuss web content? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Red-tailed hawk: This is a really good point. I think I screwed up when writing this RfC in terms of clarity, since it seems most people view this as a network of websites. I think it's fair to apply this only to web content since most of the points I made here are about search-engine optimization, which obviously doesn't apply if its not a website. In all honesty, I intended it to apply to the print editions at first, but I think based on what everyone has said here + the New York Times rating Lonely Planet guidebooks as not AI-generated, we can put the print stuff from Red Ventures in a different category than their websites. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to way into this individual RfC, but there examples where ownership by a head company has an editorial effect on all of the subsidiary media outlets that is toxic and we should consider that. Perhaps not to go so far as arguing for deprecation of all subsidiary outlets (which I don't really see happening here). E.g., Murdoch's empire, there is not a single one of his subsidiaries, in any country that is not tainted by Murdoch's editorial control. The talk shows in every country can not be relied upon when it comes to matters of fact, particularly in regards to politics, climate change or anything to do with any culture war issue. Why would we not as a matter of first principles declare every one of Murdoch's subsidiaries' talk shows to be WP:GUNREL without further analysis and save ourselves a lot of time? Note: WP:RSP already does that for those that have been discussed (AFAIK) but we could just save ourselves some time and generalise across all boundaries. Just a point for consideration that I thought could be abstracted to this situation. TarnishedPath^talk 10:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

All op eds, talk shows, and other opinion content should be rated GUNREL and only usable (rarely) when it's a subject matter expert or for the author's opinion. (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Murdoch's talk shows are reliable even in those "rare" occasions you cite. TarnishedPath^talk 08:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

That's going to be a fair bit more controversial, but over the past few years WP:RSN has been heading in that direction. I would disagree with designating as unreliable all outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch as he's 92 and we don't know how the succession will play out. I would imagine the closest would be designating as unreliable News Corp, but the wide disparity between the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and books published by HarperCollins would make that nearly impossible. I don't think Murdoch is reusing the same generative AI engine to create content for Fox News and the WSJ, nor does he have a special director in charge of a unified plan to push affiliate marketing content. But if you want to treat this RfC as precedent to make your own about News Corp, go ahead. A lot of editors (not including me) would probably agree with you. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Tasnim News Agency - revisiting its reliability

• tasnimnews.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

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

It doesn't seem that Tasnim is listed at WP:RSP, so I'm not sure what any prior consensus would've properly been. Additionally, it's worth noting that article is an opinion piece, rather than an RS accusing it of a disinfo operation.

That said, considering its extensive ties to the IRGC, I would be extremely wary of using it for anything but the stated positions of the IRGC, similar to how we've treated Russian and Chinese state-backed media. Their promotion of COVID conspiracy theories makes me think WP:GUNREL is a solid option, if not deprecation similar to WP:PRESSTV. The Kip 22:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Worth a formal RfC then? It looks like there has been some past discussion of Tasnim (1, 2, 3, 4) but no RfC. Amigao (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn’t be a bad idea, considering the Signpost context. The Kip 19:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

What is the reliability of Tasnim News Agency?

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

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

• tasnimnews.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

Survey

• Option 4: per nomination and arguments given by the user "The Kip" in the section above the RfC. "Tasnim News Agency" has been described by various sources as an "IRGC-controlled" outlet that disseminates "state propaganda and conspiracy theories" on behalf of Iranian political fronts affiliated with the IRGC. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3/4 per nom and arguments above. State mouthpiece that has published disinformation. Possible reliable source for Iranian gov statements and similar so preference for GUNREL over deprecate, but as more official press agencies exist for those hard to see any loss in deprecation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 -- it's a state disinformation and propaganda outlet, that is occasionally valuable as a self-published primary source about the Iranian government's own actions but typically even then there's a better source. Per the WP:PRESSTV consensus, this should probably be deprecated. It's basically the exact same scenario. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 per the consensus from WP:PRESSTV, this isn’t far off from being the same source. The Kip 09:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 as said above, this is a medium for spreading IRI propaganda. JM (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Sure. Here's one about Tasnim's Covid disinformation mixed with antisemitic tropes. - Amigao (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Done. The Kip 06:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

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

What is the reliability of academically-published material by Dr. Mensur Omerbashich?

What is the reliability of academically-published material by Dr. Mensur Omerbashich?

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

Previous discussions: 1, 2.

Dr. Mensur Omerbashich is currently cited on List of earthquakes in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 1927 Ljubinje earthquake. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Discussion opened as a result of a now-blocked editor dispute. However, further discussion and searching led to finding a previous (even larger) non-RfC discussion as well as being cited on two articles. Since this involves determining whether peer-reviewed material from a scientist is a reliable source & having previous discussions on him, an RfC to make the reliability determination is needed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4, I suppose, though I doubt this really comes up enough to be worth an RFC or a RSP entry. The discussion on Talk:Sun was about an article in the Journal of Geophysics]. Let me paste in my comment from that discussion here: Looking into the Journal, it appears that what happened here is the journal went defunct in 1988. Then Omerbashich set up a website in 2020 using the old Journal's name (and laying claim to its old impact factor and etc.). He's been using it as a self publishing venue. Each 'issue', (there have been 3) has his own work in it. This isn't a reliable source and I find claims of proper peer-review highly unlikely. Participants should also have a look at Omerbashich's blog. But here's a representative quote: this discovery instantly invalidates/makes impossible any (general) relativity theory (including Einstein's) as well as any alternatives such as MOND, which jews came up with "just in case" - to keep us/goyim dumbed down so they can easier get away with being the supreme race of our masters:) - MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4, in addition to the above I am unable to find any evidence supporting Dr. Omerbashich's claim to be the current "Lead geodesist" of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a position he claims (alongside "Head of the Bosnian royal family") on his LinkedIn. -- Marchantiophyta (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Here is another website run by Dr. Omerbashich that succinctly demonstrates his relationship with the field of science in general. -- Marchantiophyta (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Neither, this seems malformed. Citations aren't fundamentally about the author, they're about the editorial control of the publication venue. I would choose option 4 for 'Journal of Geophysics', to which WP:SELFPUB arguably applies as he his the editor-in-chief and I understand that at least one of his articles appears in all three published issues. However, I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater, I do not see any evidence presented to argue that Omerbashich, Mensur; Sijarić, Galiba (28 November 2006). "Seismotectonics of Bosnia - Overview". Acta Geodyn. Geomater. 3 (2): 17–29. to be unreliable. Has any such argument been made? --Noren (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4, even if something he published is correct, it looks really fringy. And here is an interesting rationalwiki article on him, just for some context. And one quote from his blog: How fascist monopoly Google character-assassinates Dr. Omerbashich to protect its masters' theft of his multi-billion intellectual property. Artem.G (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 Given the above concerns about self-publication, if he has been published in a journal not published or edited by himself he might be OK. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4, obviously. Omerbashich's blog clearly demonstrates that he is a common antisemitic crank dressing wild pseudoscience in a hollow costume of academic language. It's a sadly frequent occurence and I hope this RFC is for posterity's sake more than any kind of real debate about reliability. Penitentes (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4, seems to be nothing more than self-published pseudoscience and/or conspiracy theories. Clear WP:FRINGE source. The Kip 18:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. This isn't really a question of reliable sources. We don't let editors add new theories to scientific articles sourced only the publications by the creator of the theory. They may be full professors and the theories may be published in perfectly acceptable journals, but that is not enough. We require evidence that the material has been accepted by the wider scientific community as shown by review articles or other material published by people independent of the originator. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Mostly correct… there are situations where it is appropriate to briefly mention an established expert’s new and unreviewed theory (one example would be in that expert’s bio article) … but when/if we do mention this sort of thing, we would have to present it as being such. Blueboar (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4. Pseudoscience. We don't cite that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 per above. JM (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4. I did some digging on this guy and, holy shit, there's a lot going on. He seems to have usurped the name of a formerly reputable journal which stopped publishing in the 80s, put some random (real) people on its website, presumably without their knowledge, and used it to peddle his anti-Semitic conspiracies and other assorted bullshit. Although the referenced paper seems indeed to be published in a reputable journal (Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia), because of his egregious current work, Wikipedia ought to keep a very, very large distance from him. See also the relevant page on RationalWiki. — Jumbo T (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Dr. Mensur Omerbashich)

Why is this written with the subject being a person rather than a particular publication? This does not follow the pattern of other discussions. It may be too late now, but I think this would have been better written with 'Journal of Geophysics' as the subject. Is there an argument to be made against https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0611/0611279.pdf, a source currently cited by List of earthquakes in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 1927 Ljubinje earthquake which this RFC as written would depreciate? --Noren (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Minor clarification: Omerbashich's paper is listed as Further reading in both of those articles, not cited. Schazjmd (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would also clarify minorly that it should be referred to also as the co-author Sijarić's paper. This raises the question: if we start to depreciate sources by author(s) rather than by publication venue, how would we handle publications with more than one author? There are many scientific papers with dozens of authors. --Noren (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need an RFC for this? nableezy - 18:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes and no. RFCBefore was satisfied, so an RfC was more or less actually needed, given the debate that actually partially ended right before this was started. That said, in a couple of days, if consensus is clear for an option, the RfC tag could be removed and speedy closed. So yes, since there have been dozens of editors involved in discussions related to his publications. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If its about a single source on a couple of pages just have a normal discussion on is this a reliable source for this material? This page isnt supposed to be a thousand RFCs to deprecate, thats only for something that is a widespread and persistent issue. nableezy - 19:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not a "single source". This is more, from what I gather, that a clueless scientist has published a handful of actual scientific and peer-reviewed papers. Imagine if say Alex Jones published a peer-reviewed article in say American Historical Review, four in Monthly Weather Review, and ten in The New England Journal of Medicine. Do you talk about the author or the actual academic sources? Would you trust a peer-reviewed academic paper by him? This spans at least four Wikipedia articles, each with different sources. So, no, this discussion is valid as it is about a scientist, not a "single source". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Which papers do you object to that were not published in 'Journal of Geophysics'? --Noren (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

For something written by anyone to be published in any of those well-established and well-respected journals, the article has to survive a blind peer review process with at least anonymous reviewers plus the review from the editor-in-chief and possibly editorial board as well (I say this based on my knowledge of how history journals like the American Historical Review work). I see no reason for thinking any of those three periodicals would publish something along the lines of content in Alex Jones's Infowars, which would likely fail the initial editorial review, much less the anonymous peer review. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak to how it works in geophysics or history, but in my experience in the biosciences the peer-review process primarily ensures that the experimental design & methods are appropriate to answer the questions being asked (and that the results at least appear to be plausible). Reviewers don't actually check if the results are valid/repeatable, and so the process assumes that scientists are acting in good faith and fails in the case of bad actors.

Dr. Omerbashich's willingness to misrepresent himself (as the "Lead Geodesist" at Berkeley), his co-opting of an existing journal into his own vanity press, and his beef with the peer-review process in general are concerning. -- Marchantiophyta (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz (mywikibiz.com)

I would like to discuss what, if anything outside of WP:ABOUTSELF, MyWikiBiz is reliable for, and whether I should restore a recent deletion at WP:CANCER.

Previous RSN discussions: [102], [103]

Article: Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#MyWikiBiz

Edit in question: [104]

Source in question: h t t p : / / m y w i k i b i z . c o m/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia

Claim that the source was used to support: "Although this essay focuses on spending, not fundraising, it could be argued that the ever-increasing spending is a direct cause of the kind of fund-raising that has generated a storm of criticism.[ref deleted] These complaints have been around for years, leading one member of a major Wikimedia mailing list to automate his yearly complaint about the dishonesty he sees every year in our fundraising banners."

References

So, should I restore the citation? I am not saying that I should or should not; I am leaning towards leaving it out, but I am asking for advice. It seems reliable for the claim "someone criticized Wikipedia", and of course the reliability rules are different for user essays. On the other hand, restoring it would require an exception to allow an external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a userspace essay, it does not have to follow guidance on the reliability of sources.
However I think this might be a misunderstanding, the editor was restoring the page after it had been blanked by a vandal. My guess is that the source was removed as the editor couldn't restore the page without doing so, as the blacklisted site would have stopped them from saving the page. You may also find that you can't re-add the reference, an admin might be able to do so. Otherwise you will have to ask for the URL to be whitelisted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I figured as much, and I realize that I can choose (with admin help) to restore the link. My question remains: should I restore it? Does it add to the essay? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Personal I don't think it adds weight to the essay. Reading through the article I get to having suddenly realized that a majority vote of citizen-members could unseat a corrupt Board of Trustees. There seems to be a presumption of guilt there, after that statement there are statements about irregularities. However the issues mentioned happened after the scrapping of a membership board, so it's saying they always intended to be corrupt but doesn't show any prove of such.
Being more impartial I'd point out that although I agree with parts of the essay I not it's biggest fan, so take my comments with a pinch of salt. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can't save an edit and bypass the URL blacklist either -- it will also block me from saving the page. The URL has to be specifically added to the spam whitelist (which, I suppose, I can do because it's only normally full-protected). I don't think there is a solid reason for this specific URL to be blacklisted, other than the site itself being blacklisted (of which subsidiary URLs are on the list as a consequence). jp×g🗯️ 02:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not a userspace essay - it's an article.

As is common on this noticeboard, I don't think that we even have to address whether the source is reliable as it fails to meet WP:DUE anyway.

For what it's worth, several of the sources cited in the snippet of article text above should also be removed for failing to meet WP:DUE or WP:RS. The whole thing is really close to being original research. ElKevbo (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

OK can someone clarify what is being discussed? I thought it was about these edits[105] to User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer (or more specifically this edit[106] that reverted vandalsim without the MyWikiBiz URL). This is not an article WP:RS/WP:DUE it any other policy about content wouldn't apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right - the links provided as the "Article" and the "Edit in question" lead to two different places. @Guy Macon: Can you please provide clarification? ElKevbo (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe this is about the essay, see Guy Macron's comment above about being the Prime Minister of France saying "Does it add to the essay?". The article link is there for background information about MyWikiBiz. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for being unclear. I should have written "Related article". Keep in mind that in the future anyone searching RSN for MyWikiBiz.com will see this as the only discussion of that site's reliability, so comments on it as a source for an article as opposed to a user essay would not be out of line. For the record, it is a banned (you get an error if you try to post a link to it) self-published source with strong anti-wikipedia bias and a glaring conflict of interest concerning pretty much any article - they don't reveal which aricles they were paid to edit. As for my question, I now have the advice I asked for and will be leaving it out. Thanks to everyone for the help! --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

For use in articles it would fall somewhere between WP:User generated content and failing the requirements of WP:Self-published sources (unless it could be shown the author was a previously published expert). Either way it is not close to being a reliable source for referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It is not usable for anything other than ABOUTSELF, because of its content model, which affords control to commercial entities. Every page is presumptively advertorial / PR and not independent.

It is canonically unreliable for commentary on Wikipedia, due to its founder's ban for undisclosed paid editing, and his long-term beef with Jimbo. The same applies to Cade Maetz, at el reg, who has consistently regurgitated false claims made by disputants on Wikipedia, a form of fact-washing. Those disputants whose identities are known to me have all since been banned, usually for outing or harassment. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I won't be using it even in a essay, and now we have something in the reliable sources noticeboard history for anyone thinking about using it in the future to find. TLDR: don't. :) I think we are done here. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Guy Macon, while you're around, the phrase "one member of a major Wikimedia mailing list" sounds a lot like describing an ordinary Facebook user as "a member of a major social media site". Anybody with an e-mail address can be a member of that mailing list. Maybe just say "one person"?

Or maybe omit it entirely? A fairer statement would probably sound like "Thousands of people automate small donations, and one person automates an annual e-mail message to say that his personal perception of the movement's financial needs does not align with the contents or tone of the fundraising messages". We've got no reason to believe that this unnamed person actually knows what he's talking about. Some of the complainants seem to think that paying the phone bill is all you need to keep a major website online – with luxuries like "hardware" and "operations staff" strictly being optional. There's always an idiot on the internet who will say "They don't really need that many lawyers" without being able to answer questions like "How many lawsuits and threatened lawsuits did those lawyers handle last year?" or "How many legislatures around the world considered banning community governance last year, because they wanted Facebook to hire more staff and didn't realize that Wikipedia's admins are volunteers?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Soap Hub and Ned Hardy

Are https://soaphub.com and https://nedhardy.com/ reliable sources when it comes to biographies? Like birth dates etc.

Regarding soap hub I got a thanks from one experienced editor when I added it to support the birth date of Heather Tom but now another editor continues to revert it. DrKilleMoff (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I would say they are just a bit below the WP:MREL category, for now. From my experience, typically a lot of sources might cite a subject's birthyear, so I would suggest just focusing on that and keep looking to see if any reliable sources note the birthdate. TLA^tlak 04:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

https://plaskett.family

While working on one article, I found contents sourced to https://plaskett.family/mansfields-were-pacific-valley-pioneers/. Upon looking for other articles using this source, I've found nearly all insertions of anything sourced to plaskett.family site was done by one user. I reached out to the user at User_talk:Btphelps their talk page. The user said The site contains excerpts from a historiography written by a person who lived during the era described. It's first person reporting of events and people the author knew.. An example of contents sourced to that site I've removed. What it looks like is a website maintained by some random person based on notes and unpublished materials from family. Simply having it uploaded on website doesn't make it reliably published and fleshing out contents based on a such a personal website is undue. With my interpretation of WP:RS, this should be treated as a blog. Since the other user is disputing this, I am seeking outside comments. Graywalls (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If the source was authored by a person firsthand experiencing the events that the source is being cited to describe, that would make it a primary source. Primary sources aren't necessarily automatically reliable or unreliable, but as a project we generally prioritize and prefer citations to independent secondary sources—something written by a historian would be a reliable, independent, secondary source. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

They're all written by some random people late Mabel Plaskett and Bill Alderson. Not only is it just a primary source, I would even argue that it is WP:OR and WP:SYN. Research based on someone's diary, family notes and other unpublished "internal documents" would be based on unpublished documents. If a person writes contents onto Wikipedia based on papers found in their family's attic, that would be fully unacceptable original research. Now, simply having that information ricocheted off a blog site by WP:OR process having done by some random internet dudes that put their research on their personal website doesn't turn it into reliably published sources. Graywalls (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:SYN apply to Wikipedia content, not sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a fine line. If you wrote up something that would be considered original research or synthesis, then hosted it on weebly, then cited that website, it might not technically be OR or SYN but it would be on par with citing Twitter and Instagram of random people. Graywalls (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Quoting random people from twitter or instgram would be an WP:RS issue. If I was an expert who had previously been published by other independent sources (WP:SPS), then my post on Weebly could be used with caution (WP:SELFCITE). All of this is about reliability though, not OR or SYN which apply to editors not sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

ScienceDirect Topics (AI-generated pages)

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

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

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

RfC: ScienceDirect topics

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

Responses

• Yes As discussed at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#ScienceDirect_topics, an implementation of an edit filter requires a discussion at RSN. As previous discussed several times on this noticeboard (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_270#Elsevier_topics:_reliability_of_machine-generated_sources, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_417#Elsevier_topics_again, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Machine-generated_text_at_ScienceDirect_used_as_source) these are not verifiable references as the cited content on the page changes over time. We have over 1,000 references to these pages which indicates that its usage is a problem. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Last night I started attempting to replace some of these links and was immediately discouraged by both the overwhelming number of them and by how many were very recently added. It is definitely not clear to most people that SD Topics would have any problems at all, to the extent that I suspect almost no one casually using it would even consider the possibility it is GUNREL. I certainly didn't realize until I saw this thread yesterday that it was AI, despite repeatedly trying to use it to find background literature for my dissertation (and this explains why I occasionally encountered wrong shit in its summaries, and why I was never able to figure out how to cite what I thought were actual review articles...).

JoelleJay (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. They are truthy bits of out-of-context information and most people adding them will not know they are unreliable. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes per above. --Leyo 18:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes per above. In my own uses of "AI" (LLM) tools to try go generate summaries, abstracts, timelines, and other "this should be easy" digests of source material, the results have been uniformly awful, with virtually every single sentence having to be corrected in one way or another (from errors of omission to errors of focus/emphasis/nuance, to frequent outright factual errors, including "hallucinations" both of claims in particular sources and of entire sources). Maybe someday we'll be able to trust such tools to properly summarize material, but that some day is not today. Never forget that what LLMs do is try to provide an answer that will look like what should be a correct/expected result. It is not a fact-checking process of any kind, but a form of simulation. That we're able to get anything useful out of it at all (e.g. it can be used to generate simplex examples of correct, though often inelegant, Javascript or Python functions to do various things, as well as regular expressions as long as they are not very complex or do not have complex test cases to match) verges on astounding.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, as we're setting editors up for failure by not warning them. Would these be useful ELs, though? Mach61 (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. On topics for WP:MED, ScienceDirect is a commonly-applied, unsatisfying source typically providing limited search results from lower-quality journals. It is frequently selected by novice editors, requiring followup editing for source accuracy in the article. More experienced medical editors would have no difficulty finding better sources by searching PubMed with the appropriate search terms. Note for the cleanup if replacing 1000+ ScienceDirect sources is the outcome: a bot can be developed to remove them (consult user GreenC), leaving a tag, but laborious manual checking of the sourced statement and editing by a volunteer are needed to refill with a good source. Zefr (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. Similar to everyone else, I have never seen it be a reliable source for research purposes, so it should be discouraged for novice editors.Ldm1954 (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes: I was unaware that those topic pages are machine generated summaries, so an edit filter would be helpful. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Economic estimates of health benefit

At Talk:Low Traffic Neighbourhood we are discussing the reference Rachel Aldred, Anna Goodman, James Woodcock. Impacts of active travel interventions on travel behaviour and health: Results from a five-year longitudinal travel survey in Outer London, Journal of Transport & Health, Volume 35, 2024, 101771, ISSN 2214-1405, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2024.101771. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140524000173), used to justify the text:

Increased physical activity followed the introduction of LTNs and other lesser measures in areas within greater London. The resulting benefits to employers from reduced sickness absence of employees, and the financial benefits from reduced premature mortality, were estimated by the methodology of the Department for Transport. These benefits were equivalent to some £4800 per person over twenty years, compared to a per-person cost of £28–35 (for LTNs implemented during 2020 as Covid-19 emergency interventions) or £112 per person (for higher-cost LTNs with, for example, crossing improvements and greening measures).

Areas that were not given the full LTN treatment showed much lesser benefits; nevertheless, the health economic benefits of the overall programme were some £1,056m, more than ten times greater than the cost which totaled c. £100m.

This has been removed with the comments "we really need WP:MEDRS for health impacts of LTNS." and "Would need WP:MEDRS; these are simply not reliable sources".

I note that the Journal of Transport & Health is a well-established academic journal and describes its own rigorous peer-review process; the paper describes its process of extensive fact-gathering and its use of recommended estimation methods from the Department for Transport. I also notice that the essay WP:NOTBMI describes this sort of economic estimate as not biomedical and not subject to the special requirements of WP:MEDRS. I feel that this paper is uncontroversially a reliable source for the comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Let's go through the claims in the source:

1. LTNs increase active travel.

2. Active travel is as good as any physical activity.

3. Physical activity prevents health problems.

4. The health problems prevented cost some amount of money to treat.

1+2+3. LTNs prevent health problems.

Claims 1 and 4 are not biomedical information, claims 2, 3 and 1+2+3 are. WP:SYNTH says it's not okay to use multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in any single source, and I would say it's also improper to synthesize MEDRS and non-MEDRS to reach a conclusion only stated in the non-MEDRS. There then needs to be a MEDRS that explicitly states 1+2+3, even though claim 3 is obvious enough to not need MEDRS. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

For a statement about the health effects of LTNs we would need a WP:MEDRS about the health effects of LTNs (i.e. not a primary source as linked). See WP:MEDFAQ if WP:MEDRS is too heavy going. Also, we can't smudge research into active travel (not LTNs) as a proxy. Bon courage (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• While economic statements are not biomedical, as you correctly point out, saying that a study found economic benefits from reduced sickness absence of employees and reduced premature mortality is inherently making claims about sickness and mortality. Those claims require support from MEDRS. The same applies to the finding of increased physical activity, as it is widely understood that physical activity is related to health. As described in BMI, Information that is not typically biomedical may still require high-quality sourcing if the context may lead the reader to draw a conclusion about biomedical information. However, this source could be used if the health-related components could be sourced from elsewhere, or to support discussion about any benefits that are unrelated to health. Sunrise (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the wording of that text overstates the study's assumptions as facts in wikivoice. They observed changes in travel behavior via the surveys. But they didn't measure or observe health/absenteeism changes; they merely assumed them as givens and assigned monetary values to them. Perhaps rewording the text would also allay any MEDRS issues by making it clear that the study didn't make a biomedical claim but rather it just assumed a health benefit for the purpose of computing an estimated economical impact. Schazjmd (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks to all who have commented here. This paper is a reputable primary source for the finding of increased active travel in LTNs. From there, it uses an established method published by the UK's Department for Transport, an appropriate MEDRS-compliant source with a well-documented empirical base, to estimate (very approximately) the economic benefits derived from better health, in turn derived from greater physical activity. This form of synthesis is entirely appropriate for a reliable source, per WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTSYNTH. I propose to rewrite the comment, approximately per Schazjmd, perhaps as follows:

Increased active travel followed the introduction of LTNs in areas within greater London; the method of the UK Department for Transport was used to estimate and value some predicted health benefits, at some £4800 per person over twenty years. This compared to a per-person initial cost of £28–35 (for LTNs implemented during 2020 as Covid-19 emergency interventions) or £112 per person (for higher-cost LTNs with, for example, crossing improvements and greening measures).

Any comments on reliability of sources for the above purpose, before I proceed (and take any RSN-inappropriate discussion to the article's talk page)? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You'd need a secondary source for this. The primary is not usable in the way you want. Bon courage (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not clear on what policies and guidelines form the basis for your comments. Would you be kind enough to point us to them, and explain briefly how they apply? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

In the new quote, the scale of the problems is definitely reduced, but it still contains the central implication that LTNs are associated with health improvements. In addition, a Department of Transport is not MEDRS-compliant as their subject of competency is transport, not health (even a Department of Health may not qualify as MEDRS, depending on context), but their MEDRS status doesn't apply here since they are not the source under discussion. The statement that Increased active travel followed the introduction of LTNs requires MEDRS if active travel is presented as having health benefits.

....OK, personally I'd probably accept a review by the Department for Transport, on the intersection between travel and health, as being MEDRS, but I'll drop this argument here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I would normally recommend looking at the main article on this topic, in this case active travel, to see how the topic of health is discussed. However, that article itself requires a substantial cleanup with a focus on MEDRS. Sunrise (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think even if there were not WP:MEDRS considerations there would be a WP:WEIGHT issue. This is recent primary research, so why should Wikipedia (which is meant to reflect 'accepted knowledge') be interested? Asserting the novel finding as fact in Wikivoice is especially problematic. Bon courage (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

A valid point, that we may discuss on the more appropriate talk page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Emily Willis overdose sources

An editor has complained that I added reference to reports that actress Emily Willis had been hospitalized for an overdose earlier this month.

The sources I have included are:

• "Porn Star Emily Willis Hospitalized After Apparent OD, Critical Condition". TMZ. February 5, 2024. (a yellow-light source)
• Gomez, Jade (February 5, 2024). "Adult Film Star Emily Willis Hospitalized Following Overdose". Complex. (I am unaware of any discussion of the reliability of this source; it is cited in several hundred articles)
• "Porn star Emily Willis in a 'critical condition' after overdose". www.indy100.com. February 5, 2024. (a website of The Independent)

The subject is not likely to be reported on at all in higher-level sources. I am aware that the non-TMZ sources are basically reporting that TMZ has reported this, but I doubt that they would be without reasonable reliability on the reporting being relayed. BD2412 T 00:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 There is no reason to assume that either Complex or Indy100 have done any verification of TMZ's reporting. The fact that they explicitly say that the information comes from TMZ suggests that they are not willing to take responsibility in case this turns out not to be true.

In any case, we require high quality sources to report something of this nature. We obviously don't have that in this case. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether the cited sources are of sufficient quality is what this discussion is intended to decide. BD2412 T 00:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 TMZ is not a high quality source. That's not even up for debate. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's being debated right now. BD2412 T 00:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that this was the reliable sources noticeboard, not the biographies of living people noticeboard (where I think we should be having this discussion). Since TMZ already has its own WP:TMZ shortcut, I suspect that there's little to be gained by discussing it again, but obviously I will abide by whatever consensus is reached here. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 As I stated on your talk page, I would have no concerns about removing this on BLP grounds if the page weren't fully protected. This is the reason the page is fully protected - because users keep adding the TMZ report. Can you please remove the entire section about the overdose until the issue is settled? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

On closer inspection, the Indy100.com report is not entirely reliant on the TMZ report. It relays details from the TMZ report, but not the fundamental claim that "Emily Willis is in a critical condition after suffering an alleged overdose". BD2412 T 00:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This whole thing seems extremely tabloid-y and lurid, I'm not sure "alleged overdose" is even remotely DUE for the article at this time, or maybe ever, unless it sees better reporting. Parabolist (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

What in the article would be considered DUE based on the level of sources generally in use? The rest of the article is sourced primarily to IAFD, IMDb, Adult DVD Talk, AVN, Penthouse, Twitter, XBIZ, and YouTube, rounded out by Deadline, and My News LA. BD2412 T 01:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain how the existing sourcing relates to the due weight consideration of including or not including something like an alleged drug overdose? Those seem to be unrelated concerns. Are you saying that if an article has generally weak sourcing that it is ok to include something in a BLP that is sourced to TMZ? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This is BLP, and what is DUE for one of those is extremely rigorous, and the other sources in the article have no bearing on this. We have the exact same respect for every BLP on here. The implication here is that because this is an adult actress, and the sourcing reflects that, so we're allowed to be more tabloid, and that's fairly ridiculous.Parabolist (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Not that this answers your main question, but you mentioned Complex being evaluated as a source, just to point out, it’s rated green on User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter, though I’m not sure which original source list that rating came from.

BhamBoi (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The scripts that highlight sources are maintained by independent editors. They are invaluable as something to highlight source use in an article or draft, but are not much use in discussions like this -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on Complex – I don't think I've ever come across it before – but my understanding is that indy100 is a tabloidy clickbaity spinoff of The Independent – their main site is independent.co.uk. I agree with Counterfeit Purses here: the fact that the rest of the article is badly sourced does not mean that we should be sourcing a claim about a living person's drug use and/or medical history to TMZ. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Vulcan Post

Is Vulcan Post an RS? For Mang Inasal. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 10:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The language seems quite promotional, and their about us says their goal is to inspire entrepreneurs. It's likely reliable for basic details and dates. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It's apparently a digital lifestyle publication. The about page includes a list of staff and writers, and authors are identified in bylines. From skimming a couple articles, it seem like they write profiles of entrepreneurs and entities, especially ones that seem emerging. I agree they're most likely reliable for basic details, dates, information, etc. I don't know enough about their history as a periodical to assess more interpretative claims, e.&ngsp;g. if they make a projection about what might happen in the future (though from what I've skimmed, they seem to avoid trying to do that in their articles? I've seen endings hat are along the lines of 'the company leader says this is what they'll do; time will tell how things pan out'). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Outlets like this are fundamentally promotional. There's a ton of them and the main thing I see them used for on Wikipedia is to pump up corporate promotional articles that can't find real sources. They are not NEWSORGs of any stripe. At best they have the status of a press release. Not usable for notability, I wouldn't use them for content, or at all really - David Gerard (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Essentially Sports

I have been working a bit on the article for Tristan Tate, with the goal of establishing a personal life section talking about his children, partners/ex-partners.

For context, Tristan Tate was an European Kickboxing champion who was involved in a very high profile criminal case with his brother, Andrew Tate

The website seems to cover various sports and athletes and I am curious whether this article/source could be considered reliable

Here is the article in question:

https://www.essentiallysports.com/boxing-news-who-is-tristan-tate-s-wife-everything-you-need-to-know-about-andrew-tate-s-brother-s-married-life-and-kids/ Mr Vili talk 02:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The have an editorial guidelines and a advisory board, but they also offer "seamless integration" of advertising (read advertorials). I would also be careful with exactly what you use, note the use of "rumoured" or "Reportedly" they are deliberately not saying these things are true, just that others may have zaid these things. But for things like he has two daughters, and two dogs it should be usable. For BLP details about third parties (rumours of who he had relationships with and such) I would suggest finding a better quality source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Great points. @ActivelyDisinterested if the subject (Tristan) has also stated and claimed these things on podcasts, would it make it safer to assume they are valid (Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF)? Mr Vili talk 01:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

As long as the statements are about him, and not third parties it should be fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

oldtimemusic.com is AI generated spam

It's currently used in over 100 articles, probably because it comes up in every "Song explained" search, but is 100% unreliable. Until 2018, the website was a fansite for actual old-time music, but in 2018 pivoted to spammy gear "reviews", and in the past year or two has added AI generated pages about songs (as demonstrated here which frequently reuse sentence fragments. Also, the site contains a blatant lie on its home page, claiming to have been featured on Billboard and Pitchfork. I think it should be added to the spam blacklist, as I keep seeing it when doing AfC reviews. Mach61 (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like spamy bullshit Mr Vili talk 07:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I support blacklisting the source, it seems devoid of actual meaningful content. Even the names of its contributors are repetitive (Kellie Potts [107], Kellie Melton [108], Kellie McCarty [109], Kellie Hill [110], Kellie Gray [111], Kelli Stein [112], Kelli Robertson [113]) and thus most likely fake. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not a reliable source. It’s noise pollution. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Newsweek post-IBT and FAs

Newsweek's current status is to evaluate sources post-2018, after IBT ceased ownership, on a case-by-case basis. However, there hasn't been much consensus on whether genuinely good pieces from this outlet are high-quality enough for Featured Articles. Right now I'm working on bringing Etika up to FA, and I wanted to ask if this source is high quality and reliable enough to pass, or at least an exception? This covers parts of his life before his career, was written in 2020, and the author has written for other reliable sources like NME, PC Gamer and Insider (culture). PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I would avoid it. FAs require RSes and current Newsweek isn't one - David Gerard (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, it's probably best to omit it if I can't find a better source. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Fox Business as distinct from Fox News

During a recent conversation with David Gerard, I raised the question of whether our general deprecation of Fox News carries over to Fox Business. As I said there, I had not found any discussions in the archives here that specifically address FBN, and the deprecation specifically states that it does not extend to material reported by Fox affiliates. So I think it is reasonable to conclude that we do not consider Fox Business to be deprecated by mere unstated association with Fox News. But conversely this does not mean that we give FBN a presumption of reliability, either (and for good reasons, as I'll go into below).

When I mentioned to Gerard that I felt it was a good time to open this discussion (in fact it's well beyond time, IMO), he counseled me that the history of discussions of Fox here is fraught enough that if I chose to do this, I should make sure to research past discussions and uses of FBN as a source in existing articles. Forthwith:

• Previous discussions: The only discussion in the archives to directly address Fox Business was quickly closed because it was initiated by an IP who felt that right-wing media in general should be deprecated because of its political orientation ... obviously, we wouldn't do that. A year earlier, one participant in a discussion five years ago says she finds Fox Business reliable

  Other than that, I find only passing mentions that I will not link here as they don't really have anything to offer one way or the other.

• Existing use as a source: Outside of articles related to conservative media, politics and personalities, and notable people's statements about themselves made in Fox Business reporting, it seems that FBN is used as a source for the net worth or investments of individuals:[114], [115], [116] and [117] (of note is that this last one is used in a featured article about a living person that ran on the Main Page last year; the FAC does not mention it despite questions about the reliability of other sources during the discussion). But there are other uses, mostly the sort of facts that are part of standard business coverage: [118], [119], [120] (part of a bundle) and [121]. I'm sure more could be found—this is just a sample.

I would agree that any determination that Fox Business is a reliable source come with the following carveouts:

• Any content originating with Fox News,
• Any scientific or political content (likely a huge overlap with the first),
• Any content originating with Maria Bartiromo, or a guest on her show, post-2016 (Her article even says that she's become fanatically pro-Trump since he was elected. I've also been reading Network of Lies lately, and Brian Stelter reports that by 2020 many of her own friends and former coworkers didn't recognize her (save physically) as the onetime pioneering and respected financial journalist, the first to report directly from the NYSE floor, she had been 10-15 years earlier) and
• Any content from Lou Dobbs's show (cancelled in 2021).

Anybody else want to help resolve this? Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that reporting by Fox Business that is solely about financial conditions of companies, financial markets, economic data, and so forth would be considered reliable, but if there's even a hint of science or politics, then it's best to look elsewhere. The thing about business news that much of it is routine, any reporting worth citing isn't going to be unique to Fox, it would get picked up by other news organizations. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I've been hoping to use Eleanor Terrett's stuff but had qualms about Fox News because I have qualms about Fox. I suspect it's a happy accident when Fox doesn't suck. OTOH, Fox Business may be a suitable area to carve out - David Gerard (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, older versions of that sort of reporting is also sometimes more likely to be found on FBN, though, due to archiving and paywall policies on other business-news websites. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Two sources on Mongol Flags that I need confirmation for

I'm looking for sources on Mongol Banners & Suldes, and I have come across two that I'm not able to verify. Here they are:

https://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ICV27-E7-Zhao.pdf

https://mongoltoli.mn/history/ (Has a lot of info on mongol banners and images)

Sci Show With Moh (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Mongoltoli.mn should be reliable, as it's backed by the Mongolian government. [122] I'm less certain of Flaginstitute.org, as it describes it's members as novices and experts, vexillologists and vexillographers, flag geeks and flag nerds.[123] Also although there's some details of the author at the bottom of the PDF it's unclear what those details amount to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing cousinship of Joanne McCarthy (basketball) and Melissa McCarthy plus

1. Is it enough to source that Joanne McCarthy (basketball)'s sister Jenny McCarthy is cousins with Melissa McCarthy and separately source that Jenny and Joanne are sisters. Alternatively, are any of the following RS for the cousinship of Joanne and Melissa [124], [125], or [126].
2. Although generally not reliable, does the photo of a social security card make this a reliable source that their grandfather was born Michael Carty.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

   1a. Yes it should be, if they are sisters they share cousins. Be careful as in some situations it wouldn't be true, step-siblings could have different sets of cousins and other such fringe cases. But in general 'the cousin of my sibling is my cousin' is an uncontroversial statement.

   1b. In regard to the sources, I'm not sure about the first, the dailymail is a deprecated source, and the last link just keep redirecting me to scam adverts (you have won a MacBook pro and such).

   2. The problem with images is provenance, how do we tell that the image is what it claims to be. As it's in a self-published post on Medium by a Genealogical adventurer & storyteller I would probably avoid it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of WebMD for medical claims, esp. veterinary.

There have been multiple comments and discussions over here and Wikiproject medicine about the reliability but I don't believe there's been recent consensus on it.

There are multiples sources talking about it's reliability and criticising it

When it comes to veterinary/animal related articles they are even worse. For example: https://www.webmd.com/pets/dogs/what-to-know-shetland-sheepdogs

The author has no expertise in this subject he is a 'seasoned technology professional based in Florida. He writes on the topics of business, technology, personal finance and digital marketing.' and although it states the article was reviewed I am doubtful it truely was.

In this Shetland article it claims the breed is prone to hip dysplasia - except a study of over a million dogs and 16,000 Shetlands found the breed was not prone to hip dysplasia at all and that the breed was less likely to acquire hip dysplasia than other breeds in the study with an odds ratio of 0.51. Another study of more than a million hip records found the Shetland to have the fifth lowest rate of hip dysplasia out of 60 breeds.

The article itself is hardly professional and it'd never be accepted as a source/citation in academia.

I fail to see why Wikipedia should accept WebMD for medical claims given it's conflict of interest issues due to funding, articles written by non-professionals, incorrect information, and failure to cite references. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Traumnovelle (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

From WP:MEDRS,

Medical information resources such as WebMD and eMedicine are usually acceptable sources for uncontroversial information; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly.

So, not reliable for anything contested. Bon courage (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I do understand that but I'm trying to get consensus on whether it should be used at all or if it should be unreliable specifically for veterinary context.

The breed articles appear to just have contain made up information or information sourced from unreliable sources. I believe they are making claims based on generic websites and breed clubs without reviewing any literature at all. Not all information can be contested because many of these animal breeds are just so rare/uncommon reliable information for things such as life expectancy simply don't exist. https://www.webmd.com/pets/cats/what-to-know-about-the-snowshoe-cat for example they give a life span of 14-20 years - yet there are no studies on the cat's life expectancy that I can find searching google scholar

That policy has been in place for a while and WebMD has changed a lot since then, the articles on WebMD today are written by non-professionals and editorial oversight seems to be lacking. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've repeatedly referenced MEDRS in your edit summaries where you deleted claims about the health conditions of dogs. For example, here [127] and here [128]. These are rather large deletions. But the MEDRS standard doesn't automatically apply to animal health. WP:BMI states Generally, editors do not enforce a requirement for especially high-quality sources for non-human medicine. And given this edit summary [129] directed at you by MapReader, maybe you should do less of that. By the way, it looks like much of your own sourcing is made of primary studies that also wouldn't pass the MEDRS standard, even if it applied to dogs. Although some of your deletions are fully justified. Geogene (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this source should be banned. The Vox source cited above said "Overall, the doctors I spoke to said they didn't find anything exceptionally egregious about WebMD." ("The doctors" in this sentence refers to medical professionals writing a competing website, so they are hardly likely to be unreasonably generous to their competitor.)

The complaints about "conflicts of interest" apply with equal force to newspapers and magazines, which have always been happy to run political ads right next to political articles. The Vox complaint linked above could have been re-written as "WebMD uses Google Ads". That source, by the way, is getting some of their money from unregulated advertorial chumboxes served up by Outbrain, which wanted me to know "Top Podiatrist: If You Have Toenail Fungus Try This Tonight (It's Genius!)" and five other things (four of which looked like dubious medical advice; the fifth was about how to block ads). Pot, meet kettle.

On the specific point (i.e., whether the Shetland Sheepdog is unusually prone to hip dysplasia), the goal is to write what most reliable sources say. If most reliable sources say that it's not especially prone to hip dysplasia, then that's what the Wikipedia article should say. If the Wikipedia articles accomplishes this by citing WebMD, then that's fine. If it accomplishes this by citing a different source, then that's fine, too. What we don't want is people to cherry-pick sources that have a minority viewpoint (or outdated information) and present those as if that was the accepted knowledge on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Dusted Magazine

https://dustedmagazine.tumblr.com/ and http://www.dustedmagazine.com/ before that. I've been working on Draft:New York City Jazz, and this is one of the sources to establish the notability of the album. But is it actually reliable? To the site's credit, it's been operational for over twenty years, and with one to two dozen writers contributing at some point. It has also been linked to over 800 times. On the other had, the site is staffed exclusively of volunteers, and most of them have never been published in "serious" magazines. Would you accept this as a notable source in an AfD? Mach61 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like a group blog, I've asked for some input from WikiProject Music. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, it seems to function like any other digital publication, just with hosting on Tumblr rather than their own site (explained here). I wouldn't immediately discount it, though I'm not aware of any specific credentials any of its regular writers can claim. Being volunteers shouldn't disqualify anyone either, though. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Whatever this discussion concludes about the source (hopefully WikiProject Music is able to provide more guidance), I agree that neither volunteerism nor using Tumblr as their platform should necessarily disqualify Dusted as a periodical with a history and a team. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• I can't speak to anything on Tumblr, but Dusted was an independent review site with editorial control when I consulted it semi-regularly in the late 2000s and early 2010s. I'm not sure if it had a paper outlet, but the website was one that contains valuable information and criticism of independent and experimental musicians up until it stopped publishing (I want to say mid-2010s?). I don't know anything about the new site and who's managing the name of the publication now, but for historical profiles/interviews/reviews, I have and certainly would cite them in an article and have many times accepted them as an RS at AfD. Chubbles (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Chubbles It's the same folks running it, the OG site was abandoned due to having outdated code Mach61 (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Church Executive

User @Pbritti has been citing a website, Church Executive, as a reliable source, in the article for Ryan Binkley even though every article that is cited, is on the website's "Blog" section. This is a flagrant violation of WP:BLOG, however, Pbritti insists that Church Executive is a reliable source with an editorial staff, even though their website has no "about us" section to confirm this. Additionally, the source has never before been used on wikipedia prior to this so there is no precedent as to using it. Can someone help weigh in on this? Scu ba (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The specific article in question is RYAN BINKLEY & CREATE CHURCH: Welcoming by (divine) design Scu ba (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Every article posted to the website populates under the heading "blog"; this is probably just a filing quirk. You can see the cover story for the most recent issue is on Walter McCall. The accessible version of that story is visible here, filed under "blog". The magazine's editorial staff is listed here. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

this is probably just a filing quirk, regardless, if they call it a blog... it's a blog. 2 people, who are also the only reporters for the "magazine" isn't an editorial board. Best, Scu ba (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

What is your evidence that there are only two reporters? I see articles by Jeff Harvey, Sharon McDowell, RaeAnn Slaybaugh, and Eric Spacek. None of these people are the two editors, who appear to have a tight leash on what gets published, considering articles are only shared by the account labelled "admin". They appear to prefer people read their emagazine rather than use the website, which seems to just serve as a backup to the articles they've published. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay... then cite the physical magazine under {{cite book}}, don't cite their blog.

Regardless, that doesn't change the fact the magazine has never been cited before on wikipedia, and appears to just be self promotional material for church leaders. Scu ba (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

For the record, {{cite magazine}} is a template for citing magazines, whether physical or digital. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Scu ba, I'm guessing that you haven't seen WP:RSBLOG before. If a magazine calls something "a blog", it doesn't matter. It's still published by the magazine. (Also, technically, what makes something a blog is the content and publication schedule, not the software used to post it online. Blogging software often gets used for non-blog purposes, and vice versa.)

I really appreciate you being cautious about sources used to describe people, and I'm glad you asked about it. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've seen print editions of Church Executive. It's a magazine about ecclesiastical leadership, like a trade periodical for church professions, that's been around for around two decades. Every physical edition of the magazine includes the URL of its website (churchexecutive.com) on page 2 and a list of its editorial staff and editorial board on page 3. I suspect Pbritti's right on the money that the URLs of the online versions of articles are genuinely a filing quirk. This source meets the basic expectations of reliability for Wikipedia, which considers periodicals with editorial review (newspapers, magazines, etc.) reliable sources. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

New York Post: Not fact checking false claims

The New York Post reported, without fact checking, on a book showcased by Israel's president at the Munich Security Conference, who attributed its authorship to Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahar. The title in question is "The End of the Jews," which was actually authored by Al Fidda Mohammed Azzat Mohammed, an Egyptian writer, in 1990.

New York Post article: Israeli prez presents hateful Hamas book found in Gaza: 'The End of the Jews' (nypost.com)

The book in Israel's National library: نهاية اليهود / تأليف: أبو الفداء محمد عزت محمد عارف | عارف، محمد عزت محمد | | The National Library of Israel (nli.org.il)

This shows at the very least a very unreliable fact-checking process. Bowad91017 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

They use words like Herzog claimed the book was authored by instead of just saying the book was authored by, I can't see anywhere where they make the claim Mahmoud al-Zahar wrote the book himself. Scu ba (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The New York Post is already listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as unreliable, and shouldn't be cited anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

NY Post is GUNREL, and we shouldn't be using noted-as-GUNREL sources on heavily sanctioned topic areas - it's a source I've removed from this specific sanctioned topic area previously as just not being up to Wikipedia standard - David Gerard (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

New York Post did not say it was written by Mahmoud al-Zahar. As has already been pointed out, it merely says that Mr Herzog claims that (the same sort of wording appears in NBC News). Sources which actually say it was written by Mahmoud al-Zahar include Jerusalem Post and Haaretz. So the only thing being shown here is how selective the essay-class WP:GUNREL page is. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

MEDRS sources on curcumin supplementation

On Talk:Curcuminoid, I proposed the following studies as WP:MEDRS sources: [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143].

My main motivation is to expand the current Curcuminoid#Research section (or Curcumin#Medical research), which seemed somewhat lacking and outdated to me regarding recent research and the actual results of research conducted so far. However, Zefr pointed out some issues with the sources, which in their opinion make the studies non-compliant with WP:MEDRS, so I would like to build a consensus on these, before using them in the article. Here's the list of issues pointed out and my reply to/interpretation of them.

• "low quality": WP:MEDRS only talks about quality in specific aspects that are easy (or even possible) to verify, such as WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDRS#Predatory journals. Since all of my sources are systematic reviews/meta-analyses of human RCTs or guidelines, they pass WP:MEDASSESS. As for predatory journals and journal quality, see the last point.
• "limitations raising doubts about the quality"/"too many limitations": WP:MEDRS makes no mention of limitations. In fact, all studies have limitations ([144], [145]) and it is the job of the scientists publishing and peer-reviewing the study to decide whether those invalidate the reported results or not. ([146])
• "small sample": WP:MEDRS makes no mention of sample sizes. Deciding whether the sample size is large enough should be done by the statistical analysis (determining significance) in the study.
• "inadequate research"/"limited, unconvincing results"/"weak underlying studies": these are arguably subjective, so it's unsurprising that WP:MEDRS mentions nothing of the sort. Even if a finding is weak or limited, Wikipedia may report on it, for example here: "The American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) and World Cancer Research Fund International (WCRF) concluded in a 2018 report that there is limited but suggestive evidence that foods containing heme iron increase risk of colorectal cancer." (Heme#Cancer). I fully agree with Anastrophe that weak science is not necessarily bad science ([147]).
• "unacceptable altmed journals": WP:MEDRS#Predatory journals indeed should be avoided, but I know of no specific restrictions/Wikipedia guidelines about "altmed" journals. In particular, the following journals have been brought into question:
  • BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies: BioMed Central does not point to any predatory (or otherwise problematic) publishing.
  • Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine: I did not manage to find much information on this one, but it is used in some other articles too. ([148])
  • Phytotherapy Research: Phytotherapy Research mentions no issues with it.
  • International Journal of Molecular Sciences: International Journal of Molecular Sciences does not mention any concrete issues with it. However, since it is from MDPI, which is a borderline source, I agree that some more scrutiny is warranted, but I found no problems with this particular study ([149]) or journal.

Do you think the studies above qualify as WP:MEDRS sources? If not, what is the concrete problem that disqualifies them? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I've notified editors at Talk:MEDRS as they're most likely to have expertise with these types of questions. Schazjmd (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage, Headbomb , David notMD, Psychologist Guy, do any of you have any interest in helping evaluate these sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Bendegúz Ács is a new editor with a poor understanding of evidence-based medicine. As I explained in some of my posts on the talk-page of Curcuminoid, I can relate to this because in the earlier years of my editing on this website I had a poor understanding as well. Similar to this user, I used to look for any systematic review for beneficial health claims without looking at the quality of the journal, if the data is consistent or reading through the methodology of the reviews and only quoting the abstracts. This is a common issue I see with many new editors who dive into medical topics for health and disease claims. The pattern is always the same. Just because a systematic review has been published does not automatically mean it is good.

Most of the journals this user is citing are not reliable, it has been explained on the talk-page why this is. The user raises the topic of The American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) and World Cancer Research Fund International (WCRF) here. I was the user who added that content a long time ago to the heme article. What this user does not mention is that there is a difference between quoting a cancer authority like the American Institute for Cancer Research who have looked through hundreds of papers and meta-analyses and just quoting from a single meta-analysis. We wouldn't use the latter if we are talking about limited evidence but if an authority has reported on this after looking at the totality of evidence, it is worth citing. The user has not looked at WP:MEDORG. Users Bon courage, zefr and David notMD have a lot more experience with this, maybe they can help this user. Unfortunately from experience most new editors in this topic area are not willing to listen. I am not saying Bendegúz Ács is a sock-puppet but their editing is similar to 3 other accounts I have had experience with, one of these was Atchoum. If you also check the archive for Curcumin a lot of the claims this user is making have already been made before. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am a new editor, but I would like to think that my understanding of WP:MEDRS is pretty solid, after carefully reading and examining it - I have even had some minor contributions ([150]) to the page in that process.

I fully agree about not "blindly" accepting any systematic reviews. However, I do think that any potential issues that would disqualify a source should be explained in detail in WP:MEDRS, especially so that new users can have a chance of learning the process of finding good sources.

"Most of the journals this user is citing are not reliable": this has not been proven, and as I mentioned it there, WP:CITEWATCH gives explicit instructions for both MDPI and Frontiers Media to "Evaluate on a case by case basis", which is not the same as "not reliable" at all.

I only mentioned heme as an example where Wikipedia cites weak ("limited" in the text) evidence. I do think that content is great, and similar content could be written about curcumin (or curcuminoid), based on my sources.

"We wouldn't use the latter if we are talking about limited evidence": this is not mentioned by WP:MEDRS. Also, what determines whether an evidence is limited or weak?

I have looked at WP:MEDORG, but WP:MEDRS (or WP:MEDORG in particular) does not say that only official guidelines or position statements are acceptable, even for any particular claim. It also does not say that these sources are generally better than meta-analyses.

This is my first and only Wikipedia account, and I am absolutely willing to listen. I suspect one reason why my editing is similar to that of some other accounts could be that they also base their judgement of studies solely on WP:MEDRS. I think our common goal should be to improve our editing guidelines, such as WP:MEDRS, so that it will actually be enough for new editors to read and understand that document, rather than having to ask for reviewing the sources in a noticeboard like this.

I have looked at the archive, and the issue was indeed mentioned there before, but not the concrete studies. Zefr specifically asked one user there to propose specific WP:MEDRS reviews, which is what I am trying to do now (see Talk:Curcumin/Archive_1#Missing data). Bendegúz Ács (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm reading WP:MEDRS, and at least for now I share Bendegúz Ács's confusion about the objections. Meta analyses published in academic journals with editorial boards seem to fall at the top of the WP:MEDASSESS pyramid on the left (and therefore accepted) side of the WP:MEDORG chart. I'll add that Complementary and Integrative Medicine is published by De Gruyter, and Phytotherapy is published by Wiley & Sons, both academic publishers with strong reputations for quality work. I'm most concerned about the journal published by MDPI, because I'm familiar with how hit or miss they are.

Reading the talk page (permanent link), I'm struggling to see much beyond Bendegúz Ács pointing out that Citewatch recommends examining journals from publishers like Frontiers and MDPI (though in any case none of the four sources asked about on this noticeboard are Frontiers-published, so the Frontiers matter exists only on the curcuminoid talk page) on a case by case basis and other editors straightforwardly saying the journals are unreliable (instead of explaining the reasons for drawing that conclusion, e. g. criticism from sources accepted as reliable, etc.).

For medical topics, a lot of caution is definitely appropriate, so I'm not saying anyone should rush to restore this material to the page. What I mean is that I see how a straightforward, good faith reading of the WP:MEDRS content guideline can lead one to the conclusion that these sources are appropriate to cite. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

We may have to take these one by one. Here's an example of how to evaluate sources using the first one linked above. Perhaps someone else will follow the pattern for another.

• Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38085369/
• Type per WP:MEDPRI: It's a secondary source (specifically, a systematic review).
• WP:MEDSCI: Archives of Dermatological Research is a peer-reviewed medical journal published by Springer that ranks in the top 10% according to Scopus. There is No magic number for impact factors, but at 3.0, theirs is certainly respectable. It is also a relevant journal (dermatology) for the subject ("Evaluation of curcumin for dermatologic conditions").
• WP:MEDASSESS: It's a systematic review, and MEDASSESS says "editors should rely on high-level evidence, such as systematic reviews".
• WP:MEDDATE: It was published a couple of months ago, well within the ideal of 5 years.
• WP:MEDINVITRO: It does not rely on pre-clinical/non-human research.
• WP:MEDINDY: No reason to believe the study authors are hoping to become millionaires or otherwise have a conflict of interest.
• WP:MEDBIAS: No reason to be concerned about a systematic review being biased.

Overall conclusion: This first source meets the MEDRS ideal.

The next step here is note that "meeting the MEDRS ideal" does not mean you can write anything you want. It may be the ideal type of source, but that does not mean that it is reliable for any statement at all. An appropriate statement for this source might sound somewhat closer to the "promising candidate for further research" end of the spectrum than the "will solve all the world's problems" end. This is because (@Zefr, please note) although it is possible to write an extremely high-quality review from low-quality studies – Cochrane does that all the time – you cannot get definitive conclusions from (exclusively) low-quality data. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent example evaluation, it also helped me understand the guideline and its application better! Should I separate the sources here to help the review process or write specific article content proposals based on them? Is there anything else I could do to help? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of following sources on net-worth & career

I am working on adding some information on the networth & career of Tristan Tate, I would like to know which of these sources could be considered reliable in the context of WP:BLP and in general.

1: https://coinwire.com/tristan-tate-net-worth/

2: https://moneymade.io/learn/article/tristan-tate-net-worth

3: https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/what-is-tristan-tates-net-worth

4: https://accumulate.com.au/tristan-tate-net-worth/ Mr Vili talk 02:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

5: https://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/celebrity/romanian-authorities-reveal-the-true-value-of-andrew-tates-empire-and-fortune-and-its-a-far-cry-from-300-400-million/

1: Coinwire to me seems somewhat reliable, they have editors, and principles regarding unbiased reporting, integrity and transparancy

2: Seems accurate to me, only a small disclosure about affiliate disclaimers https://moneymade.io/disclosure

3: Personally, I think the Sportskeeda source seems unreliable in this context, it states his networth is $10m but that is a fraction of the cost of his luxury cars, furthermore, it says his brother purchased a yacht in 2022 costing around $100m, yet it says their combined networth is $100m which seems highly unlikely considering they own private jets, luxury properties, luxury cars, and expensive jewelry & watches

4: Appears to be reliable, and niche-focused on networth of celebrities, but not much information I could find about their editorial policies/team Mr Vili talk 03:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mr vili I would be careful with gauging the networth of a subject like Andrew Tate. Unlike your typical businessperson who maybe has stock in companies or some kind of venture capital funding, it's probably impossible to do the same for Andrew Tate as his assets are unclear, as can be seen in his career section.

I'm pretty sure that for Wikipedia, net-worth should almost always be based on an estimate from Forbes (not contributor, that is). Or some other very reliable sources like the New York Times (which typically also relies on Forbes). You could probably say something like revenue from his businesses but networth is likely contentious. TLA^tlak 03:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Also,

1. Coinwire, doubtful. It's like a crypto blog, it seems.

2. Same as Coinwire.

3. WP:SPORTSKEEDA, hell no.

4. Blog.

5. Hell no. WP:CELEBRITYNETWORTH

In addition, a lot of them have contrasting figures. So in my opinion we should not financial information unless we get something from Forbes staff. TLA^tlak 03:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that it would be very difficult to get an accurate representation of their networth, especially due to the subjective nature of their online brand identity which also carries some worth and not easily measurable.

However that being said, do you consider them at least somewhat reliable in regards to the career section? Mr Vili talk 03:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Celebrity Net Worth and Sportskeeda are generally unreliable (I would not use this for something like a career section, maybe it's fine for pop culture info), and the others read like a tabloid. I personally wouldn't use it, and there are sufficient WP:RELIABLE sources that write about Andrew Tate anyway.

Let's see what other editors say TLA^tlak 03:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thanks I had not checked whether some of those had already been discussed/included in the RS list so my bad Mr Vili talk 03:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't use any of these; they're garbage as this is a WP:BLP. As noted, blogs and previously identified unreliable sources. Mr. TLA is absolutely correct - any site that is attempting to quantify a net worth of a marginally notable minor public figure is simply lying. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kuru agreed. Follow-up, my BLP articles aren't really businesspeople just mostly human rights activists, but for something like net-worth, does Wikipedia only use Forbes staff articles, profiles, or their lists? That's at least what I've seen. TLA^tlak 03:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I personally think even the Forbes and Bloomberg lists are fantasy, but at least they're limiting themselves to figures with significant public holdings of some generally agreed-upon value. I'm not kidding when I say there's thousands of goofy scraper sites and blogs that randomly apply a "net worth" to minor actors and sports figures in order to offer the pretense of biographical completeness. But yes, we frequently mention net worth for billionaires leveraging Forbes and Bloomberg; certainly not for pedestrian biographies. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Forbes and Bloomberg, noted. Andrew Tate's net worth is $900 million, wait no $370 million USD, oops, $12 million, TLA^tlak 03:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

What makes a news source notable?

This is more of a question and curiosity around news sources themselves and what makes them notable. (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

If news sources are often typically used as references in news articles, what makes them notable enough to have their own pages on Wikipedia? Do we have any guidelines on this? - how do we determine whether a news source is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia?

To clarify, I'm not asking what makes a news source reliable as a source, but what makes a news source notable for inclusion on Wikipedia specifically? It just seems like a kind of chicken-and-egg thing to me since we rely on news organizations to often establish notability of other subjects, would be curious to hear thoughts & get links to other pages that might talk about this Mr Vili talk 04:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Mr vili, we need independent reliable sources to talk about an organisation to make it notable. In case of news sources, those would be other news sources not owned by the same owners, books by people not employed by the organisation, independent academic papers discussing the reliability, etc. of that source, and so on. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If Wikipedia considers a news source as "generally reliable" in the terms of the WP:RSP, does that factor into it's notability at all? Mr Vili talk 05:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It shouldn't, but it's almost always intertwined. When evaluating if a source is notable, we often look at how it's cited in other reliable sources. That is one of the contributing criteria for WP:NMEDIA. TLA^tlak 05:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

NMEDIA isn't an actual guideline but the sort of things mentioned there can sway people in AFDs. A newspaper that keeps getting referred to by top-tier newspapers may get an article that just says it exists if nothing more, simply because AFDs will keep them. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I recognize that but I guess it could be considered in the back of the mind. A lot of newspaper articles are stubs, so it makes sense. TLA^tlak 06:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a bit of a problem as noted before. A media site that is cited a lot and contains good news stories and is reliable is not so likely to have sources describing them as organisations which are more interesting in that they get involved in producing fake news or other trash. And yes the highly cited boring sites do get AfDs and smaller articles describing their interesting stories rather than the organisation itself. Since this does happen we probably do need to recognize there is this problem with the notability guidelines and do something about it. NadVolum (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I am personally in favor of having as many articles (or information inside a larger article) about the sources we cite as feasible, but we do run into a problem with what to say. The first sentence is easy ("The Mulberry Advance is the weekly newspaper in Mulberry, Kansas") and sometimes we can get a second sentence ("which at one time held the distinction of having the lowest circulation of any newspaper in Kansas"), but then what? We run into WP:WHYN problems – the practical problems of trying to write an encyclopedia article that complies with the principle in NPOV's WP:BESTSOURCES that all articles should be WP:Based upon independent sources. Without sources, it's hard to write a proper encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That’s an interesting question, but I don’t think that this noticeboard is really the right place for a general discussion on notability of news orgs. Perhaps someone with more experience could suggest a better place? FortunateSons (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Reliability and Notability are very different things. To give an example … Sean Hannity is certainly Notable, but is deemed completely unreliable for sourcing information. Meanwhile, there are thousands of news reporters out there in the trenches who are deemed very reliable, but are not at all Notable.

What makes a news outlet reliable is having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. What makes a news outlet Notable is having other sources discuss them (whether for praise or criticism). Ideally these other sources would be scholars (such as historians), but being discussed by other news outlets is enough. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that it is worth mentioning that a news source can be clearly notable and yet utterly unreliable. Examples include Der Stürmer and its modern namesake The Daily Stormer, as well as the amusingly bizarre Weekly World News. I agree that the quality of our coverage of smaller news outlets is lacking but I have found that such articles can usually be improved and expanded with sufficient research. Cullen328 (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Multiple sites from a single company

Hello,

I'm contacting you following an exchange I had in the MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Advercity_websites.

Indeed, on numerous wikis, the French company ADVERCITY has cited itself in hundreds if not thousands of articles as a reliable reference source. In reality, their websites are nothing more than a compilation of various official sources, listed on their site. Where I'm disturbed is that they claim to be an official site, often from a public administration such as a town hall, in order to increase publicity for their sites. I think banning these sites might be a good idea, as it would prevent these unreliable sources from being picked up by other members who are unaware of their actions.

The sites concerned here are :

1: commune-mairie.fr

2: conseil-general.com

3: communes.com

4: acte-deces.fr

5: mairie.net

6: mairie.biz

7: db-city.com

What do you think? Torrora (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I would support this, considering that the French Wikipedia community, which probably has the most insight here, decided to do the same ([151]). Bendegúz Ács (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this could probably be added to the Global Spam blacklist. TLA^tlak 03:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, I've made a request for Global Spam blacklist.

Perhaps you could give your point of view on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist too? Torrora (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Army and Politics: Afghanistan by Nabi Azimi

My edit was recently reverted in the “Saur Revolution” Wikipedia page as a translation of a book originally written by Afghan Army General Nabi Azimi, was translated by his son Ilyas Azimi and published to AuthorHouse, which is a vanity publishing source. However, I recently found out that the original book (in the Dari language) was not published to AuthorHous but rather a publisher in the Pakistani city of Peshawar in 1995, three years after the collapse of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Would that make it more reliable, considering the original version was not published to AuthorHouse? And if it is more reliable, can I add back what I wrote in the Saur Revolution article? Thank you in advance. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If the original wasn't self-published then that's fine - that there is a self-published translation doesn't change that. NadVolum (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Left guide I think this means it would be okay for me to make a revert, right? AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, that would be fine. Left guide (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Happy editing! AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The Underworld Podcast

I am planning on making an article on Cherif Ould Tahar, a Malian drug kingpin, and I was wondering if The Underworld Podcast would be a good source for this. They recently did an episode on Tahar's drug networks in the Sahel, and the journalists Danny Gold and Sean Williams seem reputable enough to include their coverage for the article. Would the Underworld Podcast for this purpose fit RS? Jebiguess (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I would be hesitant to use it as a source for a BLP. From their channel description:

From ISIS insurgents to MS-13 hitmen; Nigerian traffickers to Indian dons, Danny Gold and Sean Williams have met a lot of shady people in the past decade-or-so. Underworld brings their investigative work and excellent sense of humor together in one slapdash, hastily-edited podcast. Each week the transatlantic pair dives into a different gang, boss or warlord, charting their route to infamy and the systems that allowed them to flourish.

Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources regarding UNRWA October 7 controversy

An editor has been repeatedly adding to UNRWA October 7 controversy (a page regarding aspects of the Israel/Hamas conflict), material about a reporter who covered aspects of the incident and an apparent friend of hers. They are using sources that do not discuss the matter -- indeed, predate this 2023-2024 matter by years -- for information on these two living people. For example, in their latest edit, they have added:

• Landes launched the IDF's social media presence,
• Keller-Lynn and Landes co-hosted the podcast series Us among the Israelis.

References

My concern is not so much about the accuracy of the statements as regarding whether such sources can be sufficient to establish WP:DUE for inclusion of BLP material in an article on a contentious topic, given that the articles cited did not and could not be covering the subject of the article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You may want to post to WP:NPOVN (or possibly WP:BLPN), as DUE isn't a RS issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Is Yahoo's intheknow.com generally reliable?

Yahoo! News is listed as a WP:GREL, so I'm assuming that one of their subsites is likely at least not bad. I see it come up very very often when working on articles with Wikiproject internet culture, and there was a tiny discussion a few months ago but more input would be helpful before I use it as a reliable source. TLA^tlak 03:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliability isn't inherited, many companies own both very highly regarded reliable sources and absolute trash.
It's also important to remember the listing relates to news originating from Yahoo, they also aggregate news from other sources and the reliability of any reposted news comes from the original source not Yahoo.

InTheKnow.com specifically looks marginal, it had proper staff and didn't try to hide it's sponsored content. But it's articles were often of low quality, for instance the first link from the old RSN post[152] is made of reposting Instagram, Twitter and TikTok posts. It's probably reliable, but I wouldn't use it for contentious WP:BLP details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Very much so. It seems like it's relatively clear when intheknow.com has its own in-house journalists write a piece, but it's not so clear when articles are sponsored.

I think I'll treat it as "reliable" but won't use it to establish notability. I use it for non-WP:BLP drafts anyway, thanks. TLA^tlak 03:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Group of AI Generated "News" sites

I stumbled across this a few months (December) ago and totally forgot to post about it here.

I found a group of websites with news/blog posts that are pretty clearly AI generated, and use AI generated images on them. I don't think I've fully fleshed out the full list of sites, but this is what I have found so far (They all link to each others in various ways):

• Isp.page
• Ts2.ai
• Satproviders.com
• Isp.today
• elblog.pl
• ts2.space

Some of these do seem to be used as references in various Wikipedia articles.

Of special note is ts2.space. Back in December when I was first investigating this (This was the original site that led me down this rabbit hole), they had a blog section filled with similar articles (and linking to the above sites). I don't seem to be the only one to notice this, as the TS2 Talk Page has someone complaining about the AI Articles on it. Interestingly, the edit history of the TS2 page has some hints as to what happened, suggesting that someone bought them out and is "transforming" the companies (See this edit and this edit).

I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia in general, so I'm not sure what the best next steps would be. Cmdrraimus (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As this is a form of news aggregation, no, we should use the sources they use, and not them Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Where did you see sources? Some articles ([153], [154], [155], [156]) are generated from YouTube videos, do you consider the videos sources?

However, some other articles from this network do not mention any sources, or the source is not linked properly ([157], [158], [159], [160]). Bendegúz Ács (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Slater, we should use their sources. Regarding AI content in general, use is generally considered incompatible with Wikipedias policies (for good reasons). FortunateSons (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I have checked them, and most of them indeed seem to be entirely AI-generated, often based on YouTube videos. I also found two more websites that post AI-generated articles from this network, cremasb.com and worldreportnow.com.

I support blacklisting the ones that host the AI-generated articles themselves or directly redirect (cremasb.com, worldreportnow.com, elblog.pl, ts2.ai, satproviders.com, isp.today), which I believe is the appropriate protocol for spammy websites that may confuse Wikipedia editors. I did not find evidence of AI-generated content on ts2.space, ts2.tech and isp.page. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

aerotime.aero

So, this is an interesting case. On the website, it says its name is "aerotime hub" and just recently, this discovery was made, User:AeroTimeHub. The sockpuppet of the linked account was arguing for the addition of the site on Talk:Josh_Cahill#AeroTime_reliability, where it was uncovered that it's a marketing company that does paid advertising and advertorials, rather than actually write news. The account in question has a well deserved oversight ban, and the fact that this will never be a reliable source due to its lack of transparency, I recommend deprecation or blacklisting. DarmaniLink (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's cited in a lot of articles: search results Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware, however, it's not a news agency or an otherwise reliable source, simply due to the nature of them being PR/promotional content presented as news. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post

I was wondering about the reliability of JPost? They ran an article yesterday claiming Hamas is creating a "false narrative that Gazans are starving and dying as a result" despite every major humanitarian organization in the world stating there is a catastrophic level hunger levels in Gaza right now. Perhaps even more disturbing, the article includes the quote "Sinwar is ensuring that food does not reach the Gazans" yet when you click on the hyperlink, it directs you to an article about Israelis blocking humanitarian aid for Gaza! This is blatant journalistic malpractice and wanted to ask about its broader reliability since JPost is currently cited in around 10,000 articles. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The source that refers to all Palestinians arrested by Israel as terrorists. It might well be time to have a closer look at this one. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

No it should not be an RS for this conflict, really. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Not familiar enough with JP to have an opinion in general, but I note this article is tagged "analysis", an ambiguous term that sometimes connotes "opinion" and sometimes more in-depth expert analysis, depending on the publication. In this case, it's clearly the former. The author is a social psychologist who works on branding and has no expertise in this topic. So as a minimum, we should note that "analysis" by JP contributors should be treated as opinion not used as a source for facts. To stop using their actual news content, I'd want to see more evidence of unreliability first. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed… analysis equates to opinion, and both reliability and Due Weight depends on who the specific analyst is. Analysis should always be attributed in text, and never used for non-attributed claims of fact. Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Analysis does not equate to opinion; consider Statistical analysis. But I agree that this particular source should be treated as an opinion piece. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

JPost is generally considered mostly centrist or center-right, and while they are somewhat affected by bias, there are definitely worse major publications when it comes to the I/P conflict. It has a significant national and international readership.

Regarding reliability, it generally meets the standards set forth for most sourced, and is considered „mostly factual“ by MBFC, and „mixed“ by ground news (citing MBFC and Ad Fontes). They are broadly cited by Wikipedia and also by many in the MSM; therefore, they are (generally) reliable. That being said, rules regarding the citation of opinions obviously need to be considered. FortunateSons (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I don’t entirely disagree with your conclusions, but worth noting Ad Fontes and MBFC are considered generally unreliable at WP:RSP. The Kip 21:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

True, thank you very much for giving me the opinion to clarify what I (poorly) attempted to imply: while both have significant issues, they do generally provide decent context about how a source is perceived, which has some value here (as generally discussed in the RfCs). FortunateSons (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I’d personally shy away from using JPost for reporting on the conflict, but considering the “Analysis” tag, wouldn’t this just be considered under WP:RSOPINION? The Kip 21:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Given its obviously false reporting on this current conflict I thing they should be considered as generally unreliable. TarnishedPath^talk 14:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Calico (company)

My name is Minna and I work for Calico (company). I have posted at Talk:Calico_(company) regarding three reliable sources issues. (1) Whether an interview on YouTube is an acceptable citation for a criticisms/Reception section (2) a correction regarding not being a subsidiary of Google and (3) whether the cited source actually says Calico is "ineffective".

I was hoping an editor here might be willing to chip-in. I'll have a few other requests too if anyone is willing to stick around on the page for a bit. Veteransway (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User Kline responded on the article Talk page and took care of it. Thanks all! Veteransway (talk) 20:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

zamaaero.com

This source is used here to prove that Aegean Airlines had stopped flying at Heraklion International Airport. That might be correct. Unfortunately PikiLuka claims that the source is unreliable, with as comment Zamaaero is not a reliable source because author of that website just uses airline website. He does not have access to the GDS or contacts in the airline. Furthermore, author of Zamaaero has huge history of false information on his website. Because of all that, his website is not a reliable source. ([161]) That is all without any proof. User:Der HON states that "Zamaaero is not listed as a source to avoid, so citing it is okay. Please check there to see if an aviation source is reliable or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Resources#Common_sources_to_avoid". So we have a conflict.

I like to know if zamaaero.com is a reliable source or not. The Banner talk 21:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

That a source is not listed in no way makes it reliable, editors are expected to exercise good judgement in selecting reliable sources.
I can't see anything immediately wrong with Zamaareo, but I'll wait to see what PikiLuka has to say. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If we consensually block zamaaero, we would consequently have to ban many other aviation news pages too, as they rely on verification via an airlines website, e.g. "aviation.direct", "italiavola", "aerotelegraph" just to name a few. And imho, there is nothing speaking against using airline website (they should know best which routes the operate and which not) to publish online.

A bigger concern of mine is the usage of personal twitter accounts to source an edit. It may be a subjective perception, but I do think that it has increased lately, especially with IP-editors. And as every person can freely express and write ones opinion there, regardless of the truth, I'd argue that it's a major problem. Der HON (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Posts on Twitter would be subject to WP:SPS, basically it's only reliable if it's by an expert who has previously been published by other independent reliable sources.
There's been some previous concerns about similar aviation websites, which is why it would be helpful to hear PikiLuka concerns.
WP:Primary sources can be used, but there could be concern over whether the content should be in the article if the only people bothered to mention it is the airline themselves. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Zamaaero is very unreliable source because of many reasons. Author of the website often posts false information, which are proven to be wrong. For example: https://zamaaero.com/06/03/2023/novosti-iz-regije/prvi-objavljujemo-smanjenja-air-serbia-smanjuje-bukurest-za-4-tjedna-leta/

In this article Author claims that Air Serbia is reducing OTP flights, whereas readers say him that SUTT is not yet loaded. He claims that flights are being reduced just by looking into airline's website, without even contacting the airline or taking a look into GDS.

Couple days later he publishs an article: https://zamaaero.com/13/03/2023/novosti-iz-regije/air-serbia-povecala-letove-samo-15-dana-prije-prvog-leta/

In this article he just confirms that he had published a misinformation in the previous article.

Furthermore, here is another example. In the article: https://zamaaero.com/22/12/2023/analize/ryanair-se-siri-u-zagrebu/ he claims that Memmingen will be flown 3pw during SUTT24 by claiming in the comments that he had contacted the airline.

Just couple weeks later in it shown that this is another misinformation and that FMM is being cancelled for SUTT24.

Next example. In the article: https://zamaaero.com/26/12/2023/novosti-iz-regije/prvi-objavljujemo-smanjenja-ryanair-smanjuje-u-regiji/ he claims that Ryanair is reducing flights in ZAG. Just days after, the much more website ExYuAviation posts a denial from Ryanair which is exactly what is shown on the airline's website: https://www.exyuaviation.com/2023/12/ryanair-denies-regional-winter-cuts.html

Day after the author of Zamaaero claims that Ryanair is lying: https://zamaaero.com/29/12/2023/novosti-iz-regije/ryanair-neosnovano-demantirao-zamaaero/

These are only handful of articles which lead to misinformation of public, and because of them I strongly believe that Zamaaero is not a reliable source. PikiLuka (talk) 10:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.goedkoopvliegenclub.nl/

This website looks more like internet and twitter scraping then a real news website. In their disclaimer they state: De redactie van deze club / site vergaart zijn informatie uit openbaar toegankelijke bronnen. Hiermee kan geen garantie gegeven worden op de kwaliteit van de informatie of leveranciers. Nader onderzoek van zakenpartners is de verantwoordelijkheid van degene die een transactie aangaat. De redactie aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor kosten en schades die bezoekers lijden als gevolg van aanbevelingen in de club of deze site. Overname van artikelen is toegestaan mits bronvermelding (English: The editorial team of this club/site collects its information from publicly accessible sources. This does not guarantee the quality of the information or suppliers. Further investigation of business partners is the responsibility of the person entering into a transaction. The editors accept no liability for costs and damages that visitors suffer as a result of recommendations in the club or this site. Reproduction of articles is permitted provided the source is stated)

To me, this looks like a source that needs to be avoided. The Banner talk 13:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The New York Times

The Intercept, itself a WP:RSP, has written an article today exposing the NYT's deplorable fabricated article entitled 'Screams Without Words', written on 28 December 2023. This article went on to be the basis for many other stories in supposedly reputable media, and was largely used as a justification for the atrocities committed by Israel against the Palestinian population in Gaza in the weeks that followed. The blood of thousands of Palestinians is on the hands of the NYT for publicising such disgusting fabrications.

Such a flagrant lack of journalistic integrity, not only to hire two non-journalists to begin writing for them in October and November 2023 (Anat Schwartz and Adam Sella, coincidentally nephews by marriage), but for at least one of those people (Schwartz) to be an anti-Palestinian extremist, having liked Tweets calling for Gaza to be turned into a "slaughterhouse", is reprehensible. This afront to journalism is surely enough to have the New York Times permanently removed as a reputable source, at very least for coverage of the Gaza genocide. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure a permanent decision is in the purview of this noticeboard or the general community, but on reading the Intercept article, I do find myself concerned. There's been the bizarre coverage of trans medical care for the past couple years, now there's this un-journalistic badgering of family members of victims and stretching unverified claims without evidence into front-page spreads. I'm not sure at this point what the right step is, but I don't think it'll be right to consider the New York Times, and certainly at least the article the Intercept is reporting on, WP:GREL for content pertaining to the state of Israel's actions in Gaza. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

In a conflict full of disinformation and high emotions on both sides, I would rather wait how this story unfolds. As of now, the original story stays on the NYT website. Note even The Intercept grudingly admits there may have been sexual violence during the terrorist attack, but veils it into some weird phrasing indirectly blaming "several hundred civilians" in a "second wave". Pavlor (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, the full context is The question has never been whether individual acts of sexual assault may have occurred on October 7. Rape is not uncommon in war, and there were also several hundred civilians who poured into Israel from Gaza that day in a “second wave,” contributing to and participating in the mayhem and violence. The central issue is whether the New York Times presented solid evidence to support its claim that there were newly reported details “establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7” — a claim stated in the headline that Hamas deliberately deployed sexual violence as a weapon of war.

The Intercept's critique of (and my concern about) the New York Times is not about whether or not any sexual assault happened, but about whether the Times presented sufficient evidence to support its claim stated in the headline Hamas deliberately deployed sexual violence as a weapon of war, i. e. an organization systematically and deliberately deploying sexual assault. I wouldn't call this a "grudging" admission or "veil[ed]" language; the Intercept is honing in on precisely where the evidence apparently warrants ambiguity but the Times chose to say it as clear fact. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I take all bombastic revelations like in The Intercept or in the original NYT story with a grain of salt. NYT may remove the article and publish an apology, or stand by its content. Other RSs will probably add their own findings to this story. Then we may judge. Pavlor (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree the NYT has a decades-long history of (imperfect but) excellent reporting, is considered “the newspaper” by many and is broadly (directly or indirectly) cited by a great amount of significant RS.

Its coverage of the war against between Israel and Hamas has definitely been imperfect, but so has Al-Jazeera's, the BBC's, and a long list of other sources considered RS. A topic-based depreciation would be inappropriate even if every claim you made was accurate, the best it would prove is that one specific article is insufficient to show that sexual violence in conflict was planned instead of incidental.

Regarding the article itself - I don’t love it either, but as far as errors in journalism go, I wouldn’t consider it any worse than the hospital story that the vast amount of RS fell for - at least it’s conjecture instead of such a harmful translation error. I agree with my fellow editor above, we just have to wait for the benefit of posterity to figure this out, and I would encourage citation with attribution for controversial claims coming from RS newspaper regardless of the so-called ‘side’ they are on. FortunateSons (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking back this morning I agree that calling for the NYT to be permanently removed was a little hasty, to say the least. However, my issue is not so much with what was contained within the article (though the hounding of Gal Abdush's family is abhorrent journalistic malpractice). My issue is more with the hiring of Schwartz and Sella, given the timing of their first articles, given the nature of these articles and given the following investigation into Schwartz' conduct on social media.

If the NYT are essentially hiring friends of friends as journalists; people with no, or incredibly limited and amateur, prior journalistic experience, to write on such a contentious and delicate topic, I think they are setting a very dangerous precedent, especially given their reputation as "the newspaper" for so many.

With relation to the article specifically, I accept that during such a chaotic time, and with so little access to the given area for foreign journalists, there will inevitably be mistakes or mis-reported stories. However, The Intercept's article on what Schwartz wrote is accusing her of far worse. In essence, they are saying that she was so desperate for a story that she failed to do her due diligence as a journalist - which is understandable given the fact that she is not one.

Again, given that the NYT is so widely reputed as a very good source, her fabricated and sensationalised accusations were used in part as justification for Israel's response to the attack by Hamas on 7 October. To skew public opinion on such an important matter is criminal, and I've no doubt that a large number of people justified the slaughter of thousands of children because of Schwartz' words.

I do believe that, given the deplorably callous actions by the NYT in the coverage of this topic, we should not use the NYT as a reputable source for any further reports on the Gaza genocide. At very least, articles written by either Gettleman, Schwartz or Sella should be blacklisted. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that you moderated your position.

I think this issue should be split into 3: journalistic conduct, story content, and hiring.

1. conduct: if what the intercept (which I would consider less reliable that the NYT, but reliable unless proven otherwise) alleges is true and complete, that is a set of actions that would disgust any journalist I have had the pleasure (and occasionally displeasure) of meeting/talking to. That being said, for the purposes of Wikipedia, I wouldn’t consider that that be significant; it is first and foremost a human issue, but not one of reliability.

I think it’s important to add that “skewing public opinion” is not really a good point here. If the content is untrue, that’s enough not to use this specific article, and if it isn’t and you consider the changing of public opinion to be sufficient, then we would have to depreciate all pro-Palestinian sources based on a (just to be clear, highly tenuous) claim that support for Palestinians may assist one or more terror organisations in their goals.

2. Content is something we cannot know at this time. Some of what the intercept writes is plausible, some less so, but unless you are a member of the NYT staff, none of us are going to be able to verify some or all of that. We just have to wait for more reporting (from both ‘sides’) and see how this plays out. Trust me, this is as annoying to me as it is to you, but our shared impatience is unfortunately not an adequate reason for taking quick and decisive action. In the same way, we shouldn’t depreciate the NYT on an entire topic based merely on the fact that one potentially inaccurate story may be used as what you describe as a genocide, a claim (just for the benefit of uninvolved readers) considered to be likely inaccurate by many including some legal scholars, governments and some judges at the ICJ (Germany, Israel, Uganda (?), but I could be wrong, so take this with a grain of salt).

That being said, anyone justifying the intentional, direct and legally and militarily unjustified targeting of children on either side of this conflict is an unpleasant person to say the least (and to stay within policy).

3. Hiring. Oh, hiring. While definitely a complicated issue, it is pretty normal to have nepo hires. While not great, if that was the deciding factor (experience in adjacent media and a relevant professional field, assigned to work with more experienced colleagues) we really would have to depreciate half of MSM or more, something I am opposed to for a long list of obvious reasons.

• Therefore, this article definitely needs attribution (and should be removed if a retraction occurs, which it hasn’t, afaik). Issuing a ban for the NYT on this topic as a whole or 'blacklisting' the (significantly more experienced) journalists is a widely excessive measure in my opinion and should not be undertaken. Regarding her, I would definitely recommend additional caution for future articles, but as caution is already encouraged for I/P, doing anything beyond that is unnecessary.

FortunateSons (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Intercept article says The central issue is whether the New York Times presented solid evidence to support its claim that there were newly reported details “establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7” — a claim stated in the headline that Hamas deliberately deployed sexual violence as a weapon of war. but I couldn’t see in the original NYT article that they do actually make this “deliberately” claim? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

While there are some reasonable concerns about the NYT over some matters here (and over gender-related matters as someone noted earlier), we should not be leaning it on whether the headline was accurate, because headlines tend to be at best not precise. We don't accept headlines as reliable sources even when they're in a generally reliable source because (per WP:HEADLINES), we acknowledge that they have neither the goals nor the vetting of the articles. As such, we cannot judge the reliability of a source based on the accuracy of its headlines. (This is not intended to derail any concerns over content of the article itself.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

While I do understand Nat Gertler's rationale above, I think that if you title an article "‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7", you are quite clearly making the assertion that Hamas deliberately committed acts of sexual violence as a weapon of war. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a legitimate concern here in relation to the particular events and I don't think the NYT should just get a free pass source wise for those events. Although they are apologizing in a roundabout sort of a way, which is a good thing in principle, but still. Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I had been holding back on whether to believe these stories about October 7 and now this just makes the whole business even foggier. I just did not see militants on what was essentialy a suicide mission taking the time or even having the capacity to do rape, it is more the sort of thing that happens when they feel safe. Looking at this and Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel just makes everything more opaque but I can see the New York Times first part about "the woman in black dress" was badly founded and they should have known it. Other bits may hve a better basis but how am I supposed to judge when a reliable source like the New York Times does that? I have noticed other sources biasing by going in for questionable stories instead of just leaving out stories they don't like which I'm used to. I'm not going to say the New York Times is unreliable yet, especially as they're all getting worse and yet I need some stakes in the ground, but it is extremely annoying. NadVolum (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

While there are clearly some issues with how NYT managed the investigation of such an important topic, which is concerning, I don't think we should introduce any significant change in how we use NYT in general or indeed its other reporting on this topic. The most I would say is that we might want to avoid citing this particular investigation, or checking how it's been used if we do cite it. I also think that, given the what a long-standing RS the NYT is, we shouldn't rush into a decision. No doubt other RSs will scrutinise this (see e.g. CNN) and we can review in light of that. Finally, I felt the Intercept undermined its case by citing deeply unreliable sources such as Grayzone. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Intercept article says The central issue is whether the New York Times presented solid evidence to support its claim that there were newly reported details “establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7” — a claim stated in the headline that Hamas deliberately deployed sexual violence as a weapon of war.

Therefore, the burden you have to show if you want to say the New York Times fabricated this article, is that there wasn't a pattern of gender-based violence on October 7th.

Journalists are expected to gather their own information from disparate sources. They don't have to use inline citations like we do because it's expected that secondary sources are experts at determining what information is accurate. We judge a source's skill at gathering information based on whether their output is correct.

Despite the claims otherwise here, systemic sexual assault was committed against Israeli civilians on October 7th. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Collider

This topic of Collider recently came up in a discussion at The Acolyte (TV series). I have been told it's reliable and I don't see much discussion about it here. It's probably an okay source for interviews and some stories about films, but I wouldn't consider them reliable enough to be the only source for something like a release date for a show that's months away. Their track record is hit or miss when it comes to original reporting, but I could be wrong. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_334#Collider. The site is highly reliable within the television and film/pop culture genre. This includes sourcing them for exclusives/"scoops". WP:VNT would apply in those cases. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)