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

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)

2404:3100:1886:ACC4:1:0:743C:5D62 (talk) 11:27, 20 March 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)
• Option 3. There are clear instances of misinformation, see the example below about the Medici being Jewish and founding the worldwide usury system ([[1]]). This source is used a lot and while some uses might be okay (Ilam_province#cite_ref-76), a lot of them have to do with various controversial topics (for example Gun politics in the United States) and it's quite likely that their agenda and biases would affect their reporting. Alaexis_¿question? 09:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 5 follow Wikipedia sourcing guidelines -- although I have seen one or two examples of conspiracy theories on a Tasmin site (e.g. [2]), these appear to be cherry-picked by these two sources for their inflammatory material. However, on careful examination of typical individual articles at Tasmin News Agency (English), as I have done below, I did not see typical reporting that is beyond the pale.
  

The typical political articles (e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) are fairly similar to U.S. and Western news, except from an Iranian-focused anti-Western political perspective, rather than the "Iran, the 'under-developed', Axis of evil, who must be sanctioned, who is dangerously close to having the nuclear weapons like we have"-perspective. Although the articles typically lack authors, the bulk of those I reviewed provided sources of the claims they were reporting on. The U.S. and U.K. mainstream media rely on Tasmin for their source of the Iran government opinion (e.g. [8]--a source used by Wikipedia at Iran and U.K. oil tanker seizures), so they clearly believe it is reliable for claims by the government. Why when there is a conflict between Western powers and Iran must the information coming from Iran be filtered through the biases of Western-media, when it is available directly from Iran--the source of the opinion?

As opined I here, I have concerns about RfCs like these designed to blacklist any "state-funded" media that gives an opinion that challenges or differs from the U.S. State Department agenda. And, of course, the state department is happy to try to censor media in Iraq that disagree with them, by focusing only on their worst behavior: [9],[10],[11]. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Option 5 sounds correct to me.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:30, 18 March 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)

@Amigao: The Anti-Defamation League is an advocacy organization. Although, I do understand this RfC which was closed and given the "green-light" at WP:RSP, from my reading of the responses, most editors appropriately said it should be attributed, especially with regard to issues regarding claiming a person or entity is antisemitic. A blog whose title includes "Iran Regime Makes Jews its Bogeyman" and first section is titled "Accusing Jews of Sorcery" does not ring of objective reporting.

Regardless of just how reliable that opinion of what the Iran Regime is doing and their assessment of the Tasnim new articles mentioned in it (which are certainly worth looking at to see if the assessment they are as bad as the article says they are), the question Alaexis asked above, which I also have is: "Could you maybe add some details about the Covid disinformation that was added to Wikipedia using Tasnim?" [emphasis added.] Wikipedia is not mentioned in the article at all from my search of the term. I would like to see if any of those outrageous claims lasted for more than a few minutes before being deleted. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I somehow missed the response, thanks to @Amigao.

@David Tornheim, as to relying on ADL, we can sidestep their report and look at the original articles. This one, assuming that Google translate is correct, claims that the Medici were Jewish and devised the current worldwide usury system. Alaexis_¿question? 08:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: I agree that article in Arabic is serious work of conspiracy. I tried--without success--to find the same article in English (or anything similarly outlandish) at tasnimnew.com/en, with this search or Tasnim News archive search. I reviewed numerous English articles from the site, and I found nothing so outrageous. That one seems to be an outlier. Have you looked at a covid search of the site?

These are some of the articles I came across: [12], [13], [14], this one focuses only on everything negative they could come up with to say about the (U.S.-made) Pfizer vaccine--contrasting sharply with U.S. reporting that tended to focus only on the benefits, [15], [16], [17], [18]. It didn’t seem to be any more or less scientific, objective, or a-political than U.S. mainstream media [19], [20], BBC [21] or an article like this from Iran International. Compare the articles you see in all these mainstream media with those you find on Google scholar: [22], [23], [24]. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Combating Terrorism Center referenced a selection of Tasnim's Covid disinformation here and Polygraph.info referenced Tasnim's false claim that there is a linkage between the Ukrainian military and ISIS. - Amigao (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The thing is that any good propaganda mostly contains truth - it wouldn't have worked otherwise.

The problem with "follow the guidelines" approach is that there are bound to be editors who think that "Jews invented Covid" is a valid viewpoint which needs to be added to Wikipedia, and then everyone would have to spend their time arguing with them.

Designating a source as unreliable shifts the responsibility on the editor who uses this source: they need to convince others that it's a perfectly good source for the length of tunnels in Ilam or for the politics of gun ownership in the US (it's used in both articles now). Alaexis_¿question? 20:05, 17 March 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)

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 (ScienceDirect)

• 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)
• Sure if machine generated content. These can be problematic, but I use the sources Science Direct cites instead since as those are not AI generated and are instead published material by researchers. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. It's just misleading. Editors should cite the articles directly. Cortador (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes per all above, and probably heading for a SNOW here. The Kip 06:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, having only caught up on these pages not being the work of an editorial team due to this discussion. I think the way they do it is pretty clever and the pages can be useful, but I'll definitely be more cautious about assuming any of the papers in there are actually representative for the field as a whole, knowing what I know now. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Vaush, opinion sources

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.

---

The following sources are considered unreliable, but I don't think we should consider a source unreliable just because we don't like the platform. There is not a single "reliable source" that writes about this issue, because it is getting silenced by the media.

We should consider the sources on an individual basis. Please, don't reject them just because. Please, take your time to read through them. Most of them also have their own references and sources.

Sources:

1. Vaush on rationalwiki.org
2. article on thepostmillennial.com
3. Vaush Opens Porn Folder On Stream (knowyourmeme.com)
4. clips from his streams, posted on YouTube
5. thread on r/VaushV subreddit
6. article on eviemagazine.com
7. article on nationalcybersecurity.com
8. article on xkilllakillfan69x.wordpress.com

I still have some faith in society. I still believe there are people that don't want this issue to be silenced and forced under the rug. Matthias197 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the matter is severe and deals with a living person is reason for us to be extra scrupulous about sourcing. I don't recognize every source here, but a few of them are immediately and clearly not sources that we would ever consider acceptable for this sort of material -- an open wiki, a self-published blog, a subreddit.... they all fly in the face of our rules on sourcing material about living persons from self-published sources. I'm not sure who is supposed to be silencing this, but it is in the nature of Wikipedia to follow reliable sources, not to lead them based on unreliable ones. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

To clarify my statement: the topic is severe. The matter appears to be just an unpopular opinion, and assumptions that people wish to assert based on that. Thinking something could be legal is not the same as condoning something, much less engaging in it. (A friend and I once planned to take the "yes" side on a "should the Nazis have been allowed to stage a march in Skokie, Illinois" debate, but any attempt to cast us a pro-Nazi rather than taking the ACLU side of free speech would've been confronted with the fact that we were both folks that the Nazis would've gleefully killed.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Obviously not. And do you really think there's some worldwide media conspiracy to cover for this youtuber? Sheesh. VQuakr (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This would be a clear violation of BLP, you need to wait for an RS. FortunateSons (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

If you think we can source a child pornography accusation to anything less than a gold-plated RS, you may need to review WP:BLP - David Gerard (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It is an interesting conundrum sometimes. A person's existence and basic activities are covered in enough reliable sources to justify an article, but then some social media outrage-of-the-moment fails to gain coverage by that same media, as it is just not as important as the fans and foes think it is. So to the outside non-Wikipedian, it looks like we're "censoring," when of course nothing of the sort is happening. Matthias197, consider the possibility that this just doesn't matter.

I'd also like to take the liberty of toning town the section title, as putting a person's name and "CP" side-by-side is a bit overboard. Zaathras (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

(coming from Talk:Vaush) Posting this here in case anyone comes across Evie Magazine (eviemagazine.com) in the future and wanted to check the archives. I went back today to their homepage and saw an article titled "What Is A Woman?" (archive), by the same author of the one linked above, which proudly misgenders a trans man and uses the phrase "gender ideology" unironically. The further it goes the less sane it becomes. Wholly not reliable if they cannot accept the widespread scientific consensus of gender & sex. SWinxy (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The articles do indeed get weirder the deeper you go. Some light reading on the publication: [25], [26]. We should not be using this in any way. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Rolling Stone and Vice are two left leaning publications which really are rooted in pop culture, similar to what Evie seems to be as a right leaning women’s publication. Simply pointing to the fact that those two don’t like Evie specifically for its political leaning is irrelevant. The basis of a valid source is NOT if it appeals to a certain side or not. Making arguments like this goes again WP:NPV Friedbyrd (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

lol, Evie publishes COVID conspiracy theories and election conspiracy theories. That's the sort of thing that tends to lead to deprecation. It's extremely clear that Evie is an unreliable source at the very least - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"Evie publishes COVID conspiracy theories and election conspiracy theories"

Looking into it, the posted Vice article links to another Vice article which is complaining about various Evie opinion pieces which I went to. They have articles about Covid, but I couldnt find any "Covid conspiracy theories." The ones referenced in the Vice article were ones about the mortality rate of children from covid and the safety of getting the vaccine as a pregnant woman, but both of these were based on information from the CDC and the New England Journal of Medicine.

As I pointed out, both Rolling Stone and Vice are two left leaning pop culture focused publications whos main gripe with Evie is that it is a right leaning pop culture publication, of course they arent going to like them and they are hardly authoritative sources themselves. Simply saying that you or a writer at the Rolling Stone dont like them is NOT a valid argument not to use them as a source. Wikipedia is not a partisan site. However, I would certainly say that we shouldnt use Evie as a source for issues like Covid of course, but when it comes to culture issues, in this case, their article on the internet streamer Vaush promoting child pornography and his disgusting history with that stuff, its very reliable. The article itself includes video clips of Vaush saying these things directly so theres really no excuse to not include this.

Friedbyrd (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If you seriously think Evie is a sufficient source to make child pornography accusations in Wikipedia, then I must strongly urge you not to attempt to edit BLPs on Wikipedia on competence grounds - David Gerard (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be some sort of counter argument? Because you arent even making a point. Again, the Evie article includes video footage of Vaush outright saying these disgusting things so its not an accusation, its literally his own words and this is a question of how to include that information in the article. I think its also important to remember that Vaush is a fringe e-celebrity, so this means that no serious publication like CBS or NBC is going to cover this stuff, only more lower level pop-culture publications will and pointing out that these lean right politically is not at all a reason not to use them as a source.

Friedbyrd (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial if you familiarised yourself with Wikipedias policies before further engaging this discussion. FortunateSons (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I am familiar which is why I pointing out that there is no real reason not to include Evies article as a source. I would suggest others take this advice themselves and read through the BLP guidelines. Feel free to point out specifically what policy you think Im misinterpreting and why though because comments like this are not at all productive.

Friedbyrd (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP is pretty detailed about the high requirements for sources, let’s start there. FortunateSons (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we all know what BLP is. What specific part of that policy do you feel would be violated by including information about his own words regarding CP?

Friedbyrd (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

“Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.” Evie is disputed as an RS at best, and clearly not a high-quality source.

“Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.” Therefore, even if there was RS coverage, inclusion in the article would not be guaranteed

”The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.” FortunateSons (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The article on Vaush already uses “not high quality” level sources such as Daily Beast and his own YouTube videos as sources, so the argument that this is the issue is blatantly false. And per BLPSELFPUB this is allowed concerning subjects publishing their own viewpoint. It is beyond debate and is an objective fact that Vaush has said some pretty disgusting things concerning child pornography, things like the Evie article simply add additional context to this. Like I already pointed out, Vaush is a fringe internet celebrity so legit publications are not going to care enough about him to cover his views on CP. This is evident by the Vaush article relaying heavily on publications like Daily Beast and Kotaku.

The main contention mentioned is that Post Millennial and Evie are right leaning, which isn’t a valid excuse not to use them.

Friedbyrd (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources that are "not high quality" including self-published sources can sometimes be used in a BLP, mostly for routine details like events the subject attends, when a person was born, where they live, and other things like that which nobody would reasonably challenge. Contentious or controversial claims, positive or negative, must be sourced to only high quality sources. I can't think of any claim more controversial than support for child pornography. The highest quality sources are required for that, and it is non-negotiable. If there are other poor/marginal sources used to support contentious claims in the Vaush article, they should be removed too.

I agree that Vaush is a "fringe internet celebrity" that doesn't have much coverage in those types of sources. When we have a choice between complete coverage of a living person based on questionable sources or incomplete coverage with good sources, then we must choose the incomplete coverage. I know how bad it can feel when we have information we can't share on Wikipedia, but that's the balance that we've struck in the interest of protecting real living people from harm. Maintaining that balance is a constant process but it is very important. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that the subject himself has made several videos clearly and publicly expressing his viewpoint, and is by definition the only authority on his viewpoint, how can we not treat his own statements as reliably sourced? We're not talking about leaked private conversations, this is his own expressed position. 120.29.2.50 (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Not for something like this FortunateSons (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

“Not for something like this” what guideline is this based on? You’re allowed to use sources like YouTube when it comes to a person making claims certain claims about themselves like their personal life or their own personal viewpoints. The wiki articles currently already does this.

Friedbyrd (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE we would have to fully include his narrative and only his narrative, which would provide minimal value and is not in accordance with policy FortunateSons (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, well including his view that child pornography should be legal as a fact of its own would at least be consistent with the rest of the article.

Friedbyrd (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no love for many of the things that Vaush believes in (which I believe is quite clear based on my own editing history), but his stated belief is that child slavery and child pornography should be illegal, which he has repeatedly clarified and which really isn’t controversial .

There are other views on can credibly criticise Vaush which he has not clarified or denounced (but which aren’t supported by RS either), but at this point, I would recommend you Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass (pun intended). FortunateSons (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what "widespread scientific consensus of gender & sex" are you referring to, because there is no consensus. Conservatives insist that gender and gender are the same thing. Only liberals think otherwise. Matthias197 (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Fascinating. Everyone has to be a 'conservative' or a 'liberal', and has to conform in every way to this, over every topic. No room for anyone to be anything in between, or to be undecided. Talk about enforcing roles on those who'd rather decide for themselves what opinions they'd like to hold... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I posted this in the other talk thread on the Vaush page, but again, you not liking a certain article from this publication is hardly a real justification not to use it as a source.

Friedbyrd (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

These are all horrific violations of BLP and not remotely reliable as sources, absolutely not. The Kip 02:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Source 1 and Source 3 are unreliable by default as they are open wikis. Source 4 (the subject's own YouTube channel) may be usable in some contexts, but including it without any secondary sources is probably undue weight. Partofthemachine (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per RS and BLP. TarnishedPath^talk 10:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Big fat nope The holy policies and guidelines, especially the BLP ones, do not support including this without some serious reliable sourcing.

Also, the only reason I know who this guy is is that I have a close relative who’s going through a phase.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Nope I don't think enabling coverage of the antics of some idiot is a good reason to change the reliable sources policy. NadVolum (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with the assessment, but let’s avoid referring to BLP as “some idiot”. FortunateSons (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, it's just my opinion of the whole blogsphere and youtubers and twitch streamers and suchlike. I'm sure it's all very entertaining but it's just not my thing. NadVolum (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  That’s definitely fair, the objection is on grounds of civility, not taste :) FortunateSons (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest putting Vaush up to AfD instead Seriously he's just a guy who says opinions on livestreams. How is it encyclopedic to talk about him? Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm actually being somewhat serious here. If we took off all the random YouTube videos and event promotion websites from the source list on that page we'd be left with a stub principally consisting of passing mentions of him saying opinions about other, worse, Youtubers. That's it. Vaush is of questionable notability. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting point. If most of these sources are not reliable for a BLP article in the first place, then the article largely being sourced on them should mean that he wouldnt even warrent an article in the first place. If not that, then largely reducing the content of the article.

  Friedbyrd (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  A cursory reading of the citations strongly implies that he meets the requirements for notability, and Wikipedia:Aboutself does allow for inclusion of at least an overwhelming majority of the claims. That being said, I would recommend that you don’t edit the article based on my assessment that you may have an a hard time doing so neutrally. FortunateSons (talk) 19:52, 22 March 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.

oko press Poland- propaganda can be reliable source?

oko press is cited in Wikipedia but it described themselves as propaganda tool created by mainstream Agora media to create impression that it is independent. oko press own communication announced it https://oko.press/stoi-oko-press-szczera-bolu-informacja-o-naszych-finansach if some tool is created only in order to fight other ideas it is propaganda. Can be propaganda a reliable source? i request to ecxlude oko press from list of reliable sources for Wikipedia. Jarek19800 (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC discussion started below this. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC: OKO.press

What is the reliability of OKO.press?

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

Previous RSN Discussion: February 2021 (Considered generally reliable) & October 2021 (Considered generally reliable)

For some background, OKO.press is mentioned or cited on 129 articles across English Wikipedia. After a talk page discussion on Visegrád 24, it was mentioned that the source may not be reliable. Given this source is cited in CTOPS articles (including Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, LGBTQ articles, and Israel-Hamas war articles), an RFC is needed to reassess reliability. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey (OKO.press)

• Undecided so far. I will do some research and make a determination !vote soon. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 — The source seems to be reliable in their reporting. I have not found inaccurate reporting in their articles. This may appear to be a little bit of an Al Jazeera, where if it is state-sponsored, the reliability of their reporting of facts does not seem to be impeded. As mentioned below this !vote by Kip, the original nominator/idea starter of this RfC, Jarek19800, was that OKO.press was propaganda based on this article, which I have to admit, I am unable to actually translate past a “please subscribe” style addition they have. As the idea of this was Jarek19800s, could you provide an article indicating OKO.press either reported something factually wrong or a secondary non OKO.press source saying it is propaganda? Unless that occurs, I must stick with option 1. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

P.S. The RfC was started by me due to duel-CTOPS nature involved with where the possible issue about this source originated from and I will note, COI is a very high possibility here, which was brought up at AN, leading to the perm EC protection on the page. Basically, RFC was a technicality since this has been at RSN before and is CTOPS related. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: Al Jazeera; as far as I can tell Agora, who partly funds OKO, is independent rather than state-controlled. The Kip 23:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 The claim above of the piece admitting they’re “anti-PiS propaganda” seems to be… off-base, to say the least. Admittedly I’m reading a Google machine-translated version, but from what I gather, the linked piece says they were founded independently with some funding from Agora due to well-documented concerns about the PiS’ increasing control of Polish state media. Biased? Perhaps a little, but on the whole they seem to be doing valid research/reporting, and I’m not exactly sold by some of the original nominator (Jarek, not WEW) arguments regarding it being “blatant propaganda.” France24 and Politico’s endorsement of their reporting + the Index on Censorship award work even further in their favor. As per usual, attribute for opinion pieces, but facts-wise they seem a-okay. The Kip 06:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your remarks. I will try to be as short as possible which can influence some clarity. Let's follow your logic: main media company in Poland Agora creates a platform Oko press in order to fight PIS. After eight years (current) there is a new govt anti PIS and 95% of media market is completely in hands of anti PIS media including Agora. If following your logic Oko press would be reliable source they shall go against this media monopoly now,shall not they? in fact they continue to fight PIS. More generally can be a media monopoly reliable by definition? Moreover head of Oko press Pacewicz is former Agora executive so let's forget about independent funding of Oko press.Personally I prefer to judge reliability of media by its origin and definition(for example it is obvious for all that any mainstream media in russia now is not reliable source) than on base of one or two false informations but I will check what I can do also in this direction. By the way how I can prove that some information was false when there is a media monopoly in the country and the false info is local from media which covers only local issues ? Jarek19800 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You say: "for example it is obvious for all that any mainstream media in russia now is not reliable source". That idea did not get much traction on RSNB recently. But even if this is the case, Poland is a very different country. My very best wishes (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Your argument essentially boils down to “they’re propaganda because they disagree with PiS and are popular,” which is entirely personal opinion, and your claim of a “media monopoly” is both wholly uncited and outright false in the first place. Sorry that I and others disagree. The Kip 05:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1, same as Gazeta Wyborcza. It seems to be a legitimate investigative journalism site. There are no indications they promote any falsehoods or unreliable. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Google Scholar search results are quite encouraging regarding the publication's quality Other peer-reviewed publications cite it, so there's also a WP:USEBYOTHERS case to be made. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. OKO.press § Awards mentions that OKO.press has received a number of awards, including the Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards in 2020. As Rosguill mentioned, this detailed analysis, published by the Krakowska Akademia im. Andrzeja Frycza Modrzewskiego, elaborates on the "12 principles" methodology that OKO.press uses to perform fact-checking and rates it positively: "The article presents the fact-checking logic of a Polish press title published online since 2016, OKO.press, which in the authors’ view is an excellent example of reliable journalism practiced to the benefit of the public." — Newslinger talk 01:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Well regarded for its investigative journalism in 2020 by Index on Censorship, in 2019 by Politico, and in a 2020 case study by the European Journalism Centre. Looking through the cases listed in the discussion below, some of the strongest cases (i.e. from generally reliable sources) about unreliability would appear to be when OKO.press lost a court case, with the result that it had to remove a sentence by a well-known Polish activist making an allegation about a politician being in a Nazi salute photo; and RMF FM disputed OKO.press factual claims, including estimates of how many millions of PLN were received by RFM FM from oil refiner Orlen (RFM FM claimed values about 6 times lower than OKO.press did, while agreeing that the values were millions). So clearly OKO.press has made at least one, possibly more, unreliable claims, as have The New York Times, the BBC and The Daily Telegraph, which we nevertheless accept as generally reliable, not always reliable. Boud (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

General discussion (OKO.press)

• I would not describe prior discussions about this source as having a consensus for reliability. the February 2021 discussion was not formally closed and did not have a clear consensus. The same can be said of the October 2021 RfC not identified above, which had a numerical majority for general reliability but saw a lot of sockpuppet disruption and didn't have much in the way of real discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Whoops! I did not realize a 2nd discussion occurred. Would you be ok if I add that in the discussion? Also just to note, the prior discussion I linked earlier was considered in a different discussion (I don’t remember which of the 129 articles it was on), to be reliable under a 7-2 vote premise. That assessment was not my own doing, but more like a copy/paste of the assessment in that discussion…whatever article talk page it was on. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• This move to RfC seems a bit abrupt. The discussion in the thread above didn't even get off the ground. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Having an explicit political agenda doesn't make them unreliable (per WP:BIASED). Are there examples of them publishing falsehoods? Alaexis_¿question? 21:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  There doesn't seem to be; to be quite blunt, this issue seems to have been raised entirely on the argument that being founded as a counterweight to PiS-biased media and partly funded by a liberal-leaning news organization makes them "propaganda," which is an extremely flimsy basis for such a claim. The Kip 22:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  In 2018 polish Ministry of Justice published a statement accusing Oko.press of making false claims about financing public campaign by that ministry. [27] I couldn't find any articles investigating it further, though. Saletri (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  let's focus on fake news spreaded by oko press. this one confirms that they are propaganda tool used to take part in political war without any link to reality. all articles will be in Polish unfortunately and from media which are not a mainstream (media monopol in Poland) but fact checking is more accurate here https://www.tysol.pl/a73905-ekspert-do-oko-press-jestescie-propagandystami-lukaszenki-i-putina-bede-was-rozliczal-z-fake-news Jarek19800 (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Considering the PiS government was notorious for attempted media crackdowns, I’m not sure if I’d trust their word when accusing an independent outlet of making false claims. Governments are rarely reliable sources for criticism about themselves. The Kip 05:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  I ask you the Kip to be deleted from this discussion on the reason that you started to chase me on Wikipedia with a manner to delete my factual revisions of the articles. By chance you make it by hiding the facts concerning Soviet murderers which I hope has connection with defending left- wing media portal. of course we can try to say that only by coincidence you deleted my change on Mikhail Kalinin few days ago but such idea has is stupid so you have no reliability to discuss media reliability. Jarek19800 (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  You asserted on the article that he held sole responsibility for the massacre, when the source provided simply listed him as a co-signatory. Feel free to re-add with a source confirming the former claim, but on Wikipedia we don't engage in original research. Nice personal attack, by the way. The Kip 21:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  It is not opening the discussion on topic of if relevant was my add to article. it is about you chased my add ons to articles on wikipedia on base of this thread here. it is of course just coincidence in both you defend left-wing elements. anyway in my opinion it is not ethic and wikipedial to transport your personel feelings from one article to another one only on base of author. In my opinion you should not continue to comment this thread to keep Wikipedia neutral as much as possible. Jarek19800 (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Again;

  • Yes, I checked your edit history as I was slightly suspicious of your behavior given your assertions about OKO. This led to me finding your WP:OR regarding Kalinin. I’ve addressed it at the talk page, if you have a source backing your claim feel free to add it but the source you utilized doesn’t.
  • More PAs/violations of AGF won’t help your case here. If you truly feel I’m in the wrong, take it to WP:ANI and see what they think. Even without my “violations of neutrality,” the consensus thus far seems to heartily disagree with your assertions of “propaganda.”

  The Kip 00:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Having explicit political agenda doesn't make them (media) unreliable" true but on one condition: if there is no media monopoly in country or if opposite political media are not judged as unreliable. it means that political agenda in media is allowed only if media market is really and in reality free which is not a case in most countries including currently Poland. Jarek19800 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi everyone, I'm following the discussion and just wanted to add my 2 cents on the issue: OKO.press seems to be one of the media sitting on the fence when it comes to reliability. I read some of their articles (translated, though), but I cannot say that I have sufficient knowledge on the Polish media landscape to make a definitive call here. Why I am writing this comment is to say that reliability is not a black-or-white type question, as some articles may have a more political lean than others, reliability can depend on the contributor writing the specific piece, and finally, reliability changes over time.

  However, just to be on the cautious side, I suggest that we shouldn't use them as a sole or predominant source supporting the reliability of other sources, such as Visegrad 24 (because this is how the whole conversation began). Milentie Pokojni (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi I agree . it will put us forward until I will have time to present more comprehensive analisys of the total lack of reliability of oko press and open new thread. In meantime I found pretty reliable summary of current situation with media in Poland

  https://deadline.com/2024/03/poland-tvp-donald-tusk-recovering-1235844739/

  it is not perfect because forgets that for example in tv market we used to have 3 mainstream media Polsat- owned by Polish oligarch who was secret collaborator of communist secret police,TVN- owned by US left- wing owner and Public TV which was invaded and taken over in night by current left- wing govt security forces. by accident all 3 tv's are fiercely pro-government and have ca.95% of tv market. Conservative part of population which is not less than 30% has 5%. if this is media monopoly or not judge yourself Jarek19800 (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyone CU watching this conversation? This discussion being found by three accounts, none newly created but with a total of only 30 edits between them, strains credulity. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I also propose to summarize and finish this conversation with verdict: Generally unreliable. I found a final proof supporting such verdict on their official page in english https://oko.press/about-us they say that they will in same way question and control any govt. in Poland current or future. It is proved drastic lie as you will not find even one article made by them with criticism on current govt.after 3 month of its activity but you will find in same time dozens on current opposition. it is manipulative, propaganda media so Generally unreliable is adequate verdict. Jarek19800 (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

exxact citation is "We are a civic tool to control the government. The current one and every one after it." Jarek19800 (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Once again, bias does not automatically equal unreliability, and besides that,

I also propose to summarize and finish this conversation with verdict: Generally unreliable.

One editor cannot unilaterally label a source unreliable, especially when three other editors besides myself have come to the same conclusion that it is reliable. If you still fail to understand that, there may be other issues at play here. The Kip 02:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment for Jarek19800: A slight add-on to what The Kip noted. Wikipedia is based on a consensus between editors. You may want to check out that part of Wikipedia policy. Everything on Wikipedia is build by a community consensus between editors. No matter what happens, a discussion here won't end the world. A key thing here is Wikipedia is not about winning, but rather building and making a consensus, not based on the number of "votes" (commonly known as !votes), but rather based on the merits of their discussion.

This does not apply to this situation directly, but I wanted to point out the main theme of Wikipedia is Verifiability, not "truth". Everything on Wikipedia has to be verifiable by a secondary source. If you believe or know something to be true, but don't have a secondary source for it, it means nothing on Wikipedia. Again, not directly related to this situation, but a while ago, there was a confirmed instance of that ideology (based on community consensus) and I wrote up a short essay on it {Verifiability, not truth in action}. In that instance, a primary source confirmed new information after secondary sources had published the then-outdated information. After a long discussion occurred, it was found that Wikipedia needs to abide by the secondary sources and technically published a factually inaccurate table that was verifiable. I don't know if that was helpful or not, but hopefully it was. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I fully understand the concept of verifiability. if I say about truth I exactly have this meaning. mu beliefs are not important at all. I exactly gave min 2 undisputable examples that oko press itself directly writes" I am a liar, i was established to manipulate with fake news" It is a fact. no-one questioned that my links are unreal. It should give immediate effect of giving such verdict ( to get consensus). if my links are not true as experienced editors you should easily prove it. if verification is real than you should agree on consensus even if it is against your feelings. it is the logic you were kind to present which i fully agree. Jarek19800 (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter:, I feel as though WP:CIR may be taking effect here. The Kip 01:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

In discussion I found that you seem to put a big importance to examples of fake news as a proof of unreliability of the source. I was reluctant to this idea because I was afraid it will be hard to find facts given by mainstream media. Oko press is rather niche media in Poland and due to media monopoly mentioned by me earlier ,it rather favorized by other media platforms. Fortunately I quickly found some sound proofs as below. Good to notice that mainstream media like rmf,wp, rp.pl,money.pl confirmed lack of reliability of oko press. In min.one case court confirmed it. There is also interesting info on special treatment of negative comments by oko press (www.donald.pl)

https://www.tysol.pl/a74121-polacy-przepedzaja-kurdow-przez-rzeke-a-na-zdjeciu-litewski-slup-graniczny-fejk-dziennikarza-oko-press#.YYT_XnMK4hw.twitter

https://www.rp.pl/polityka/art1316381-godek-wygralam-w-trybie-wyborczym-z-oko-press

https://www.lasy.gov.pl/pl/informacje/aktualnosci/pellet-z-lasow-panstwowych

https://wykop.pl/link/5605383/obnazamy-fakenewsa-klamczuszki-z-oko-press

https://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/polska/news-oko-press-klamstwo-i-manipulacja,nId,7122926#crp_state=1

https://kresy.pl/wydarzenia/misiewicz-chcial-pozbawic-gen-skrzypczaka-stopnia-mon-dementuje-to-fejk/

https://www.gov.pl/web/udsc/oswiadczenie-ws-artykulu-portalu-okopress

https://www.donald.pl/artykuly/VZQaxXC6/to-tylko-teoria-zarzuca-okopress-lamanie-etyki-dziennikarskiej-i-kasowanie-komentarzy-pod-artykulem

https://wiadomosci.wp.pl/tylko-w-wp-trzy-falszywe-historie-wiceministra-patryk-jaki-odpiera-zarzuty-oko-press-skandal-absurd-kuriozum-6086449113904257a

https://www.money.pl/gospodarka/wiadomosci/artykul/sebastian-lukaszewicz-oko-press,152,0,2245272.html

https://www.press.pl/tresc/60211,oko_press-przeprosilo-konrada-wojciechowskiego_-_fakt_-prosi-o-wyjasnienia Jarek19800 (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Jarek19800 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Books by Norman Finklestein

Norman Finklestein is a political scientist and activist. He writes on the Holocaust and the Israeli-Arab conflict. He has written a few books on the latter, and I wanted to know if they were reliable for verifying general statements in related articles due to their contentious and controversial nature.
Thanks, — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 23:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Caution While originally an academic, he has not held any academic position for decades (as far as I know) and he is indeed controversial. That doesn't mean he can't be right on fact, but probably wiser to have other sources to back it up. I wouldn't rely only on him, especially not for any contentious claim. Jeppiz (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  While I would agree that relying on him alone could be problematic, and I am in disagreement with a number of his views, the claim that he has not held any academic position for decades is incorrect even according to our own article on him. He left DePaul in 2007, and also taught in Turkey in 2014-15, I assume as a visiting lecturer. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to give a more specific answer without more specific information. He has written a number of works, and the fitness for citation may depend on which and in what context. For instance, some of his books were published with academic presses,, and university-press published books are usually the gold standards of reliability (though we continue to use a neutral tone in our writing and don't necessarily adopt the tone of the author, who in this case is known for a bold tone). That said, book reviews can provide additional information and may provide reasons for additional considerations, though be careful to comb thoroughly. A sample size of just one or two reviews (either negative or positive) may not capture the broad reception of books that have stirred as much attention as some of Finklestein's.

Being a published subject matter expert in general does lead us as Wikipedians to think other sources written by such an author are reliable, but at the same time, there is probably some wisdom in caution. The subject you are interested in citing his corpus for is designated a contentious topic, and Finkelstein has been considered a contentious man. In general, where academic scholarship is available, we'd do well to favor such over other sources, even ones written by academics (blog posts, to give a random example). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure why you think we should favor one side of a debate - talking about his older books here. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Biased perhaps but a perfectly respectable source, books such as Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict and Beyond Chutzpah are top drawer sources. That Israel and its supporters do not approve of him is immaterial. If some view is particularly contentious, it should be rather straightforward to back those up with secondary sources and if not then, attribute. Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Caution/questionable reliability/GUNREL when it comes to facts: he has been credibly accused of questionable/misleading citations by Morris and others, has a high degree of bias bordering on fringe views (regarding Hezbollah, Hebdo, the Holocaust, and others) and has been highly controversial as a person. Some of his older works are of decent quality and can be used very selectively, but I would avoid citing him on anything in regards to law or the military due to a repeated failure to understand the subject appropriately, seen well in his coverage of the flotilla incident. FortunateSons (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Highly reliable source, his works are published by respected academic presses, such as University of California Press, and in peer-reviewed journals. His latest work, Gaza: An Inquest in to its Martyrdom, is from University of California Press. People not liking Finkelstein's positions is not relevant to this, he is absolutely a subject matter expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his academic works are WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The above comment is astounding in its attempt to dismiss one of the most cited scholars on the topic of Gaza because is is supposedly a "highly controversial person". Top tier source, and totally fine for usage here. If some source disagrees with him and it is of equal reliability then attribute the different views. nableezy - 20:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Extreme caution - I'd avoid using him for anything beyond actual opinion; he's a wildly controversial resource, hasn't held a serious job in academia since the mid-2000s, and has genuinely fringe views on a variety of topics, including Holocaust denial and discredited anti-Semite David Irving and support for the October 7 attacks. There's very little reason to use him when far superior and less inflammatory sources, without fringe baggage, are widely available. Toa Nidhiki05 14:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That is a straightforward BLP violation and if you do not substantiate the wildly inappropriate claim that the son of Holocaust survivors has denied it in any way I’ll be asking for a BLP and PIA ban in short order. nableezy - 15:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

His stance that Holocaust denial should be taught in schools by Holocaust deniers is absolutely, unequivocally fringe. That's what I'm referring to - well, that and supporting the "scholarship" of David Irving, which is pretty uniformly regarded to be discredited. That your first thought was to threaten a noticeboard report is really unfortunate. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake. Like Chomsky, Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, whose whole life and scholarship reflects the impact of their witness, has no fear of fools, denialists. Their maniacal obsessions with apparently incongruent details in the Holocaust literature occasionally stimulates close re-examination of things by now taken for granted - not the holocaust in all of its overwhelming realities, but details in the narrative. Great scholars don't tremble and run. They chase down anomalies even among crank literature because their self-assurance about the general narrative will never be troubled by tidbits of discrepancy. That is not fringe. That is the pursuit of meticulousness, even when analysing motherlodes of bullshit (which is what Finkelstein in his analytical works on the endless misreportage of events in the I/P conflict, does professionally. Had you read that article carefully, you would have noted that its reasoning, far from being fringe, draws on the liberal tolerance of dissent, all the better to challenge it, espoused by John Stuart Mill. Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This question should not be posed. Finkelstein is an outstanding historian of the I/P conflict, and like everyone else writing academically about it, he has a decided point of view. The refusal to allow him tenure against the consensus of his colleagues, under external pressure, in no way disqualifies him as an historian or political scientist. The University of California published, after a decade of ostracism, his work, Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom, and his earlier works were unconditionally supported by the founding father of Holocaust studies, Raul Hilberg. His citation index by peers shows the depth of the impact of his work Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

His view is you don't win a debate by shutting down the opposition, you win by proving it wrong. That isnt fringe, and it has nothing to do with his academically published works. nableezy - 04:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It is absolutely fringe to suggest holocaust deniers should have any role in the education system whatsoever, let alone that holocaust denial should be taught in schools. And that's not the only thing he's fringe on - since being fired in the 2000s (he hasn't actually had a job in academia since - as of 2016, he had been unemployed for ten years, and he's not been employed since), his work and viewpoints have become increasingly problematic. This includes, as I listed above, the strong defense of David Irving (an unrepentant Holocaust denier whose works have been generally regarded as discredited), the advocacy for teaching holocaust denial in schools, a staunch defense of antisemitic tropes (specifically, justifying claims that the Jews "think they are better than other people", "talk about the Holocaust too much", and are "tapped into the networks of power and privilege") and more recently, the denial of any sexual violence during the October 7 attacks (which he also applauded and compared to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). In other words: whatever credibility he had during his early academic career, it's been nearly two decades since he had a job in academia, and it really shows. Toa Nidhiki05 13:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Can't see anything there about his academically published works, see section title. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

He hasn't been in academia in nearly 20 years at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That isn’t true and his last book, again published by University of California Press, is from 2021. nableezy - 14:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

From the sourceI linked: "He hasn’t held a steady academic job since DePaul University denied him tenure under political pressure in 2007. Now, after years of sporadic work and low pay as an adjunct, Finkelstein is suddenly spending ten hours a day fielding emails from people clamoring for his insights." That's from December 2023. So I suppose he has been in academia, insofar as being an adjunct professor qualifies. I think broadly, my point still stands though - there's a clear divide between Finklestein's work before and after his leave from academia. Toa Nidhiki05 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

He was at Sakarya University Middle East Institute 2014–15. And he still is considered an expert source by the well regarded academic presses that publish his work, as recently as a book from the University of California Press in 2021. A scholar who is writing in the area of his expertise in works published by well regarded university presses is WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and no amount of whining about views you dont like changes that. nableezy - 14:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: You should strike the part where you say his views include Holocaust denial. That's a BLP violation because it's not true. He's the son of Holocaust survivors, he doesn't deny that the Holocaust happened. Levivich (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not say his views include Holocaust denial. I said he has fringe views on Holocaust denial, specifically that he supports teaching it in schools, and has publicly defended David Irving, a notorious Holocaust denier whose work has been discredited. I can clarify that specifically, but I have not accused him of being a Holocaust denier, and my wording was fairly careful, I think. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok I appreciate the clarification, thanks. FWIW, the way it was phrased, I read it as you saying that "Holocaust denial" was one of the fringe views on a variety of subjects that he held, not that he held fringe views about Holocaust denial, but I understand what you mean. I'm not sure his views are actually fringe (as opposed to a significant minority viewpoint), but I agree that's not a blpvio. Levivich (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable. He's a major political scientist, his book The Holocaust Industry has 900 Google Scholar cites [28], he has written other works that are also widely cited and well-reviewed, he is a bona fide scholar in the field. Being "controversial" does not make someone unreliable, and pretty much all high-profile scholars are controversial, like Benny Morris, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Elie Wiesel, and James Flynn come to mind. That doesn't mean we say things in Wikivoice just because Finkelstein wrote them, but Finkelstein's works are definitely WP:RS. Levivich (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

These 900 citations confirm that The Holocaust Industry was culturally important, but not that he is seen as serious from a scholarly point of view. I looked at one of t he first page hits at random (Byfield on conspiracy theories) and the reference to Finkelstein was about his work being used to legitimate antisemitism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

900 citations doesn't mean it's the mainstream view, but it DOES mean that it's taken seriously. If it wasn't taken seriously, it wouldn't have been cited so many times! Even if all 900 citations are debunking Finkelstein (and of course they're not), it would still show he was taken seriously, seriously enough to be thoroughly debunked. Benny Morris is a direct parallel: widely cited, very often to be criticized, but still widely cited. Levivich (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Extreme caution: Extremely controversial and increasingly fringe. His early work is definitely noteworthy in relevant debates, but his views should always be attributed and his work in the last decade or two would rarely be noteworthy. For recent positions, use secondary sources to ascertain noteworthiness before using. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  In what world is this not a serious academic work that is noteworthy? That, from 2021, has 59 google scholar citations. Image and Reality, from 2003, has 470 scholar citations. How does a scholar with these many scholarly works cited this often in other scholarly works add up to "secondary sources to ascertain noteworthiness before using"? He is the secondary source, and he is an expert one, and treated as an expert by both the well regarded academic presses that publish his work and by the scholars that cite it. All of the objections here are on the basis of not liking his views, and that is not, and has never been, an acceptable criteria for reliability. An academic expert writing in a book published by a well regarded university press is a reliable source by definition, and no amount of baseless personal opinion on [e]xtremely controversial and increasingly fringe trumps that. If somebody wants to challenge a scholar writing in peer reviewed journals and books published by the University of California Press they can try that, but they are arguing in direct opposition to what WP:RS says. Which is rather surprising from you tbh. nableezy - 04:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Bob. Finkelstein gets its in the neck from the left and the right. The left hate his polemic against Wokism and the BDS movement, the right, or rather, people who skimread only with eyes for possible political fallout for Israel, can't come up with any serious evidence outlining some putative failure on Finkelstein's part to observe the strictest criteria for closely documenting from the historical record. It all boils down to "instrumentalisation". Finkelstein, also as the son of Holocaust survivors, one of whom got a mere pittance from Jewish institutions lucratively sueing banks, argues that Holocaust discourse is 'instrumentalized'. Enzo Traverso and others ply the worry bead that Finkelstein's results might be "instrumentalized" by antisemites. So one gets the absurd situation that if one analyses the way the Holocaust discourse is being "instrumentalised" you get attacked for providing possible grounds for antisemites to "instrumentalize" your results. So it is no longer the merits or otherwise of a 'forensic' scholarly study of a phenomenon that receive attention, but the politics of the way that critical knowledge may be manipulated and abused. Of the handful of names who count in evaluating his book on The Holocaust Industry what sticks out are the assessments by the former doyen of the discipline,Raul Hilberg (Hilberg was a Republican-voting political conservative whose methodological and empirical integrity was underlined by the fact that he defended the views of an ex-Maoist like Finkelstein, whose scholarship was judged of a high order and whose 'controversial' results he deemed 'conservative') and by Moshe Zuckermann, against their informed authority we then get a list of take-'em-or-leav'em newspaper opinionists like Jonathan Friedman, and some empty dismissive obiter dicta hearsay about Hans Mommsen. In the wiki list, the only serious scholar who challenges Finkelstein's work in terms of imputed flaws, is Peter Novick. Good, finally an evaluation that is not just shouting, but scholarly. Finkelstein duly replied, point by point. That is how serious scholarship works, beyond the breezy screedy argie-bargie of casual newspaper-type reviews which our page on the book selects, to give the impression he is 'controversial'. I don't get the impression here that many commenting editors are familiar with the field, let alone Finkelstein's work, as opposed with what can be googled up searching for polemical negativism about the man and his scholarship. He is a loner, deprived of an income for having written uncomfortable books on a topic where vast financial resources will guarantee one's career and professional security if one cautiously steps tippity-toe round the minefield of discourse on Israel , the Holocaust, where the only trump card invariably played is to accuse anyone diffident about the homely narrativization of the politics of an ethnic state and its 'normalcy' is 'antisemitism'. That is what your extreme caution really refers to in my view, extreme caution about allowing the factual record produced, for example, by Finkelstein in his recent Inquest into the Tragedy of Gaza', to get an airing. Very few reviews could elicit any notable distortion in his analysis of the facts laid out there. Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There is already enough text in this section so I won't extend this debate, but just note that I strongly take exception to your second guessing my motivations to assume bad faith and that my judgement on his reliability is a demand that facts not get an airing. That's just not true and bad WP etiquette. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Serious scholarship, a bit too strident for the taste of many but passes RS. Attribute opinions as always. Zero^talk 12:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Reliable. Not just reliable, but he is among the best sources you can get on Israel/Palestine. His scholarship is based on detailed, painstaking research that few can match. BTW, I don't think he is attacking Wokeism, but rather the (obvious) sloppy reasoning that its activists sometimes use. --NSH001 (talk)
• Caution/Questionably reliable -- per FortunateSons and frankly per his own article's criticism section of him. At a bare minimum it would require attribution and probably should be avoided on contentious topics. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That makes no sense. He is an acknowledged scholarly authority on, precisely, a 'contentious topic' .Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

People don’t like his views so they pretend that’s a basis for challenging his reliability. It isn’t and never has been. nableezy - 17:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a very unfair characterization of people objecting to his use as a reliable source. How does that productively contribute to this discussion? Toa Nidhiki05 18:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a fair characterization when there are editors voting that Finkelstein is not reliable, not based on evidence of his unreliability, but on evidence that he holds controversial views. Has he ever made a factual claim that was debunked? Has his work ever had to be retracted? Is his work widely cited by other scholars? Etc., etc. The fact that he says, e.g., Israel is a Jewish supremacist state, or that there is a Holocaust industry exploiting the Holocaust, makes him controversial but not unreliable. Levivich (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Well obviously he's said things that are untrue - like, for example, that no people were raped on October 7, and that no children were taken hostage, or that David Irving - a notorious Holocaust denier and discredited academic - was an excellent historian. But these don't directly relate to his academic career, I'll admit. Here's a counter: has his work in the last two decades out of academia been deemed widely cited and reliable? Even he admitted in the interview I've posted several times that nobody cared about his 2019 book, which sold a few hundred copies. I don't have an issue with his early career, insomuch as his very public, non-academic descent into some very dark places in the last two decades. Simply put: there are dozens of credible historians who don't have the specific bias problems or extreme viewpoints Finklestein does, and would be far better served as reputable sources in his place. There may be circumstances where Finklestein's opinion is noteworthy, but that's as an opinion, not an objective source of fact. I think that's a fairly nuanced take. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I’ve posted the citations to his 2021 work published by University of California Press already. nableezy - 18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

And I'll say it again: if Finkelstein is unreliable because of the controversial views he holds, then Benny Morris must also be unreliable because of the controversial views he holds (like, "they should have finished the ethnic cleansing"). But of course that's not how WP:RS works. Levivich (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a discussion about Norman Finkelstein, not other people. I wouldn't be inclined to think anyone who supports ethnic cleansing should be regarded as a reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

(replying to both here) In both cases, you're judging a source's reliability based on the opinions the author holds. The idea that we shouldn't use a source because we disagree with the author's opinion is totally wrong, that's nothing but censorship. Finkelstein's comments about Oct. 7 have absolutely zero relevance to whether his works prior to then, e.g. 2000's The Holocaust Industry, are reliable or not.

"deemed widely cited and reliable" is such a nonsense phrase, Toa. You know damn well that nobody "deems" works to be "widely cited and reliable" ... well, except Wikipedia.

But yes, his works have been widely cited. I already linked to Holocaust Industry's 950 citations. His 2018 book Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom has 59 Google scholar cites, not exactly overwhelming, but certainly enough to call it "widely cited" (in this field), and it's been favorably reviewed (see cites in the Wikipedia article).

More impressive is his 2005 book Beyond Chutzpah, which has 358 Google Scholar cites.

So, yeah, still a scholar, still widely cited, and his controversial opinions are not a reason to call him unreliable in the Wikipedia sense. Levivich (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Relative to academic historians in the field, 59 citations doesn't actually seem like a lot. Your other example is from his academic time, which I'm not contesting. Aren't there other historians who have actually been in academia in the last two decades, without a track record of genuinely inflammatory remarks (again, the David Irving thing - I've not seen a response to this, at all, but defending his status as a historian is a very, very big red flag. He's widely and uniformly regarded not just as a Holocaust denier, but a fraud). I would say the same thing about a historian from the Israeli side with a similar record, too - there is no shortage of academic work on this matter. Toa Nidhiki05 18:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Which books not reliable, according to you? Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I would consider his post-academic body of work one that should be used with extreme caution. I believe I've said this multiple times now. Toa Nidhiki05 18:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

So not this one? 2012: Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel is Coming to an End, OR Books, New York (2012) ISBN 978-1-935928-77-5 which seems right on the money, at least going by the title.

Just to be clear, you assert that all of his published material since 2007? is unreliable? Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

His 2018 Gaza book getting 59 cites is not a lot but it's not nothing, either. For comparison, Ilan Pappe's 2017 book about Gaza has 91 cites. Levivich (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Serious caution and consider WP:DUE weight As best as I’m aware, Finkelstein’s work, while high-profile, is highly controversial and does not always represent academic consensus. As such, it probably shouldn’t be used without attribution, or even with it without consulting opposing views and ensuring due weight.

If NPOV policy and DUE mean that WP is nothing but an establishment mouthpiece, so be it. There are limits to our discretion in generating a big picture from raw data because we are a tertiary or sometimes even quaternary source. I believe there’s an essay about it somewhere (actually multiple iirc).

Further information: Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair

and its reference list

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Follow Wikipedia sourcing guidelines - exercise caution. It's hard to respond to such a general question, but it's clear that he disagrees sharply with many no less eminent scholars. Therefore we should not assume that whatever he wrote represents the scholarly consensus and should seek other voices. Alaexis_¿question? 21:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The Athletic

The Athletic (theathletic.com  ) is a sports website that has been cited nearly 6,000 times on Wikipedia, but I have yet to see it in the perennial sources list. Opening this discussion to seek consensus on the reliability of The Athletic; I hold that it is generally reliable, but consideration should be made for opinion pieces, which is why I have taken this source to RSN.

A note that The Athletic, though it is owned by The New York Times Company and replaced The New York Times's sports department last year, is not held to the same editorial standards as the Times. The Athletic's editorial guidelines can be found here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC: The Athletic

What is the reliability of The Athletic?

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

elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1. However, it has the caveat that its articles are often mixtures of opinion and fact, and care needs to be taken to distinguish between the two.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Owned by The New York Times, is consistently cited by other reliable sources in their own reports. See [29], [30] and [31]. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Thoroughly reliable in its news coverage, and its writers distinguish between fact and opinion. Mackensen (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• It's reliable but just to be clear, it won't be entering the RSP list if that's what you were implying/expecting, due to failure of WP:RSPCRITERIA. I don't see any evidence that this source has been perennially challenged, and being widely-used is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for list inclusion. Left guide (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the criteria you linked, an uninterrupted RFC is sufficient. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That seems like an interpretation of the criteria in a way that it was never meant to serve, and a misuse of the purpose of the RSP list. Where has the reliability of the source been legitimately challenged or questioned before? If everyone already agrees it's reliable and there has never been a reason to challenge it, we don't need an RSP entry to affirm that. Being omitted from the list doesn't make it any less reliable. We don't just add entries to the RSP list willy-nilly like this; it's already long enough as it is, and this sets a bad precedent. Please also see the explanations at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 318#ESPN and WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 319#ESPN ( www.espn.com ), which refers to a similar type of source (widely-used sports journalism outlet that virtually everyone already agrees is reliable) for why this isn't RSP-worthy. Left guide (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. The Athletic is what Sports Illustrated used to be. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per all above. One of the better sports-journalism sites out there. The Kip 07:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. The Athletic is quite good, and has the sort of detailed sports reporting that is increasingly rarer. It is written with the tone and style of a magazine, so it can have some flavor and opinion to its writing, but I trust that Wikipedians will know when to not treat hyperbole, metaphor, or other forms of figurative language as if they were intended to be read literally, and won't treat statements of opinion as fact. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, highly regarded sports journalism. It's not at all clear there's any serious dispute to address here - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Reject RfC as unnecessary Mach61 21:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment This should probably have been rejected as no reason was given as to why it should be unreliable. But anyway, Option 1; well-regarded online news source with some excellent journalists. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC as The Athletic is effectively the sports section of the New York Times. [32] No new RSP entry should be made on this RfC and The Athletic can be contained within the entry on the New York Times. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  It has many years of history before ownership by The New York Times, which is worth considering independently. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 – As the sports department of the New York Times, I am convinced. As per before the acquisition, it was well-known and widely cited, and I couldn't find any actual criticism of its reporting. TLA^tlak 13:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Allkpop

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

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

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

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

You should provide more context but here's all the previous discussions that are about allkpop: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]

It's also listed under WP:WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources#UR as being unreliable although that's just a Wikiproject. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: Some articles like this are poor for using as a source. Although this site publishes rumours and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts, however, some information on this site may or may not be true and Allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of the claims. sjh (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

If the site itself doesn't consider itself reliable I fail to see how it can be considered reliable for Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

“Makes no warranty as to validity” is just a standard legalese disclaimer; websites of many RS have similar disclaimers. Judge reliability based on substance. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

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

@Davest3r08: That's fine if other reliable sources like this can be used in a BLP too. sjh (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I Agree with @Davest3r08Davest3r08 Slacker13 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

The Shortcut: reliable source?

The author would be Matt Swider, who created this site on November 8, 2021. He has 25 years of experience being a renowned technology journalist, is the former US Editor-in-Chief of TechRadar and is among the top tech reporters in the US on Twitter. He has his journalism degree from Penn State University and launched Gaming Target while also contributing to publications Ars Technica, G4TV, GamePro, PlayStation: The Official Magazine and even some local US newspapers. https://www.theshortcut.com/about

I want to highlight, that my intention is to add this source to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Baby_Inc%2E to add the relevant addition of targeted harassment by Sweet Baby Inc. employees to a specific user and the ban of this employee by this action on twitter as the source of the controversy, not any form of opinion by the article itself. The sole purpose of the source "The Shortcut" would be simply as a secondary source (WP:PSTS) to explain the facts.

It is in this function a material cited to produce a more neutral perspective on the whole controversy, because other reliable articles try to state bias opinions of the authors about the ideology of members of this group as facts about the origin of this whole controversy. To solve this Problem:(WP:ACHIEVE NPOV) Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective.

To allow a neutral perspective, it is necessary to highlight the whole context of the source of the controversy. The controversy happen over the things Sweet baby employees have done on Twitter prior to it. Without this information the whole topic can only be based on bias opinions. The text of Wikipedia articles should assert facts, but not assert opinions as fact. It is a fact, what a certain individual wrote on twitter and how twitter reacted to this comment. It is not a fact, what an author want to see as the political or social source for the support of a group afterward. This can be mentioned in a neutral manner after a statement of the fact, that it was not the actual source of the controversy.

i want to highlight, that this is my first post on this board. This post was created after a talk about this source with the user Rhain on his talk-page and after his suggestion to post this to this board. --2003:DF:A715:5000:C8E3:2AB:2B62:BBDA (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems quite doubtful this is an RS we could use on Sweet Baby Inc. The about page makes it clear their focus is on 'pass on that time-and-money-saving information to people in their inboxes, like any good journalist would want to do'. Their are some mention of reviews, but it's not the main focus and even for reviews they say 'Brevity – no one wants to read a 10,000-word review. Often, people just want to ask: “Is this good? Should I buy something else?”' While they do mention 'independent journalism', whatever the credentials of their writers and editorial team, there's barely any mention of any focus of the site on the sort of more basic journalism needed to cover anything remotely contentious so I think there's strong reasons to doubt they do a good job at it. The site may or may not be okay for opinions on reviewed products, and for info on stocks levels etc. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd add while perhaps they're not a pure WP:SPS like most Substacks are since they have an editorial team, I'm not totally convinced it's the sort of editorial oversight we'd expect, especially when it comes to anything involving living persons. I mean their 'senior editor' seems to be the writer of an awful lot of articles covering contentious stuff [39] making it very unclear who's the one who actually reviews these sort of things. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I just want to highlight, that the opinions of the site and their editorial actions is not part of my question about RS, i am aware, that The Shortcut opinions are probably not RS, but i want to stress, that this source could be used as a secondary source (WP:PSTS) for specific and vital parts of the controversy to achieve NPOV. WP:BLPSPS is probably the case for the article opinion, but not in the specific small content, that would be used as a source, because the article is the source of material about a living person, that was original written and published by the person themself (WP:BLPSELFPUB). The Shortcut would only be the secondary source of this self-published, primary source to avoid WP:TWITTER-EL

--2003:DF:A715:5000:21F2:F985:6D74:3A9E (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

To make it a bit easier to understand. I could misunderstand something. But to quote WP:PSTS:

WP:SECONDARY

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.

The Reliability is necessary to insert an analytic, evaluative, interpretive or synthetic claim of the secondary source.

WP:PRIMARY

A primary source may be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

I just want to use the primary source in the secondary source without inserting strictly any form of analytic, evaluative, interpretive or synthetic claim by the secondary source to remain in the primary policy. 2003:DF:A715:5000:21F2:F985:6D74:3A9E (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The Shortcut currently appear to have two articles directly about Sweet Baby Inc. They are; Sweet Baby Inc. detected: What actually happened and why should you care?, and Sweet Baby Inc.'s Wikipedia page is missing key facts – here's the unbiased context. There is also one other article that mentions Sweet Baby Inc in passing. All three were written by the same author, Adam Vjestica, formerly a writer turned hardware editor for TechRadar, and current senior editor at The Shortcut.

I would be sceptical of ruling this source reliable, solely for the purpose of laundering screenshots that purport to be tweets made by staff employed by Sweet Baby Inc. Even if it were reliable, there would be a question of whether this actually constitutes due or undue weight that would need to be assessed at the article's talk page. They are asserting certain things as factual that no reliable source that I've read about the recent events have asserted, while also downplaying the intense level of harassment and doxing attempts made against the company and its staff. However some of it does match with what some unreliable culture war focused sources, like Bounding into Comics, FandomWire, and That Park Place have said. The first article by The Shortcut on the Sweet Baby Inc situation does come across as more than a bit like victim blaming, and their second one about our article on the company takes umbrage with our content, despite it being verifiable to actually reliable sources.

In terms of use by others, I've not been able to turn up anything substantial from a quick search, aside from one brief mention in an article by The Verge about Twitter restricting the reach of links to Substack. Nor have I been able to find any RS writing about the site in general. It's possible I'm using the wrong search terms though, given the publication's choice in name it's difficult to filter them from background noise about shortcuts in games, or use of shortcuts on computers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

That second article's claims that some of our article is incorrect—despite it being very clearly sourced to reliable sources—is certainly not helping its case. I would also hope that a news article claiming to have "the unbiased context" would do better than to present an out-of-context quote from the company's CEO about convincing employers to listen to one's ideas (as if that somehow proves the company is "forcing diversity"), or the completely unrelated quote from an "ex-employee" (former intern) whose comments have no relevance to the company whatsoever. The article also focuses on the accusations by "gamers" but does little to give any context from the other side (besides "journalists staunchly defend their version of events" and "this is something that Sweet Baby Inc. has denied"). Reliable sources are allowed to be biased but to claim you're not—while, in my opinion, proving otherwise—is not a good start. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Heh, I'm actually kinda sceptical of the research The Shortcut claims to have done. They said According to The Shortcut’s research, there was also no encouragement given to “avoid the games” that Sweet Baby Inc. had been involved in., which is odd considering the still live Steam curator group has sixteen reviews in it, all of which are "Not Recommended" because the involvement of Sweet Baby Inc in each game's development process. Now it's true that the curator's about description does say that it's a tracker for games involved with the company, but the researchers at The Shortcut clearly couldn't have looked too deep into the group as they clearly missed the reviews. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I just want to highlight, that the opinions of the site and their editorial actions is not part of my question about RS, i am aware, that The Shortcut opinions are probably not RS.

I once again state, that i honestly don't care about the opinions of editors of the Sweet baby Inc article on wikipedia or the opinion of The Shortcut to somehow push a claim, that one of these opinions about this controversy would be RS etc. This is not a topic to make critics about the articles of The Shortcut, explicit articles released after the opening of this topic.

In the same sense it is highly not NPOV to call tweets, made by a staff employed by Sweet Baby Inc only "purport" for this topic, while the actual RS used on the Sweet Baby Inc. here on Wikipedia article used the same account tweets and even some of the same tweets in their articles and even Wikipedia is using this right now to state facts in this article.

To claim at the same time, that these tweets would be WP:DUE is inconsistent as well, because it would make a large area of this topic in the Sweet baby Inc page about these tweets again on Wikipedia similar undue weight and it would have to be removed, thereby making the whole controversy missing a huge part of its origin.

it should be highlighted, that the review system of Steam doesn't give any other option of wording for a review, except recommendations and that a recommendation is not a call for avoiding a game, it is the typical word used on Steam for any review. Maybe a lack of understanding about Steam gives you there a unjustified sceptical view.

--2003:DF:A715:5000:21F2:F985:6D74:3A9E (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not a topic to make critics about the articles of The Shortcut, explicit articles released after the opening of this topic. In this discussion, per your request, we are assessing the reliability of The Shortcut. This is absolutely the place for us to be critical about their content, whether or not it is factually correct, and whether or not they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That is what this noticeboard does.

Now if you're asserting that The Shortcut is not a reliable source, then we don't really have anything more to discuss here. If it's not reliable, there's no way we would use it in any article, let alone one that's currently at the focal point of a controversy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

And my request was 3 times already to differ between primary facts in a single article and the opinions of the site and their editorial actions as this is not part of my question about RS, i am aware, that The Shortcut opinions are probably not RS, but i want to stress, that this source could be used for a primary source(WP:PSTS) for specific and vital parts of the controversy to achieve NPOV in a vocal point of a controversy.

I even explained this heavily with quotes by Wikipedia:

But to quote WP:PSTS:

WP:SECONDARY

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.

The Reliability is necessary to insert an analytic, evaluative, interpretive or synthetic claim of the secondary source.

WP:PRIMARY

A primary source may be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

I just want to use the primary source in the secondary source without inserting strictly any form of analytic, evaluative, interpretive or synthetic claim by the secondary source to remain in the primary policy.

It is oblivious, that someone, who is trying to judge the same Tweets once as a fact and than as unreliable and as "purport" and than even tries to argue about WP:DUE ignores simply huge parts of this argument, that

a) these tweets are partly backed by already RS sources to be self-published primary source. A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. WP:TWITTER-EL

b) ELNO#10 makes it necessary to give a different reliable source for the primary source, that the tweet in itself.

c) it is possible to use The Shortcut as a source for a primary source by simply following WP:Secondary Policy, to not make in the article an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim with The Shortcut, because it is not for itself a reliable secondary source. It still can be a reliable source of a primary source.

--2003:DF:A715:5000:21F2:F985:6D74:3A9E (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

to achieve NPOV NPOV does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is no need to compromise on sourcing standards to try to reach a balanced article. More generally, it seems it is indeed your hope to use the Shortcut to 'launder' the primary sources / tweets themselves (as Sideswipe9th mentions above), so you can then insert them into the article. This as a source for a primary source concept you have come up with is novel, but it is not supported by Wikipedia's policies in letter or in spirit. You're not going to find some loophole that lets you get tweets into the article no matter how much WP:WIKILAWYERING takes place, particularly not when you are conceding that The Shortcut is not a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

thx for linking these 2 links, as i am new to this format of writing, i will lay down my case and excuse my Lawyering, if it took place. But i will hint, that certain elements of this controversy is clearly a matter of WP:UNDUE or WP:FALSEBALANCE and despreatly need to be fixed.

For example: The curator group received increased attention in February when a Sweet Baby employee asked others to report it for failing Steam's code of conduct. in the article in question was for no reason altered from the actual RS quoted for it.

"They asked their followers to report it and its creator due to it failing Steam’s code of conduct," 93.237.171.157 (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Since you are new here, I'll mention that WP:REGISTER has some advantages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

that the review system of Steam doesn't give any other option of wording for a review, except recommendations and that a recommendation is not a call for avoiding a game Not only is a "not recommended" tag a clear recommendation to avoid the game, back at the end of February before the social media stuff happened the logo for the Sweet Baby Inc detected curator was the Sweet Baby Inc company logo with the red no symbol superimposed onto it. The curator list itself contains only games that Sweet Baby Inc have been involved with in some way, with verification taken from the company's website, newsletter, game credits, or in the case of one game a blog post by the game's primary developers saying they had brought in Sweet Baby Inc for narrative consultation. The curator list was very clearly intended to tell its followers to avoid games that this company had some sort of involvement in. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a typical example for the reason, why Editors, who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. One of these actions would be to demand, that you are in a similar discussion on the talk page on this article, that uses WP:PROVEIT for your argument, but ignore this policy in this case.

Once again you ignore the simple facts, that Steam calls any negative review a recommendation. The negative recommendation to a game in public is not a public statement to avoid it, even if this is claimed by others/you.

In the recommendation description is simply a link to the prove of involvement of the company in a game. This is not a statement to avoid the game.

The curator list was very clearly intend to list the games Sweet Baby Inc was involved in without even giving any reasoning for the dislike. The about page clearly state the actual purpose of the list to be a tracker for games involved with Sweet Baby Inc. 93.237.171.157 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

and RS actual stated, that the curator list doesn't give a reasoning for the negative recommendation beyond a proof of their involvment. --93.237.171.157 (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

93.237, this would be so much easier if you just said exactly which source(s) you want to cite and what statement(s) you want to cite it/them for. Woodroar (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS - If you're going to accuse someone of blockable offenses, provide diffs. and reasoning.

Saying a game being tagged as "not recommended" by a steam curator means the curator isn't telling you to not buy the game is a terrible hill to pick to die on and hurts any arguments for inclusion on the source.

It is, in my opinion, an argument made in bad faith by the author that hurts the credibility of the article. Given people followed the group to know which games not to buy, I would go as far as to say the entire statement is irrelevant.

That being said, there may very well be statements inside that it can be sourced for which we needed the door to open on in a secondary source, which this is.

Maybe something in there is worth attributing to him, or is worth sourcing to the article as something that indisputably happened. I don't know what, but that's why we have the discussion process. I won't make a sweeping statement like "the entire thing has no value,"

It would be nice if you proposed some sentences or additions from the source, because right now, I don't think it's appropriate for every statement contained within. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

As someone who actually reads Steam reviews, I find the claim particularly funny. Perhaps it's just because of the games I'm checking out, but a fairly common review is one which starts off with something like "it's a pity Steam only allows me to recommend or not recommend since I don't feel either of those fit". To my mind, most people who actual use Steam reviews understand that not recommend is explicitly telling readers IMO this game is probably not worth playing and recommend is explicitly telling readers IMO this game might be worth playing. Of course since it's a binary you're forced to pick a side even when you're neutral or it's complicated. But the forum seems to have chosen the "don't play" side and with all the other stuff they say this isn't surprising since it's precisely how they feel. I'm guessing they didn't even start their reviews with the classic "I didn't actually want to pick a side" line I mentioned. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think even SBI's biggest detractors would claim the group isn't about telling people what games to avoid, that's what "not recommended" means. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

> ...that the review system of Steam doesn't give any other option of wording for a review, except recommendations and that a recommendation is not a call for avoiding a game

Reviews on the Steam Store page only allow positive or negative reviews. Curators on the other hand (such as Sweet Baby Inc Detected) have the option to give an 'Informational' review instead. At the current time they have 0 positive, 0 informational, and 16 negative reviews. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I missed this yesterday and don't pay much attention to curator reviews myself. It's even funnier than that an argument is being made that the negative review is not intended to recommend against the games. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't really feel like wading through the knee-deep foul-smelling liquid that seems to surround this topic, but it seems really alarming and silly to suggest that we consider a source unreliable because it says that a Wikipedia article is wrong. It should not be our general practice to bury our heads in the sand like this. jp×g🗯️ 19:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this source is reliable when it comes to factual basis of the material. Other sources previously used in the article don't really affect reliability of this one for one simple reason - these sources, for the most part, don't even mention information used here, and when they do mention it, some part of information gets omitted. I don't think that information provided here contradicts any major points in previously used sources, please do correct me if I'm wrong - with citations. Cheers --Moon darker (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

My main issue is "to what extent is it reliable." We would probably have to use it with a caveat that any statement which would need to be attributed, so anything which doesn't reference a tweet or otherwise summarize primary source material should likely not be included. Which, I'm fine with. DarmaniLink (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

If a variety of reliable sources report on story elements A, B, C, D, E, and F, while one or two sources report on those plus G, there's a good chance that something is wrong with G. It may be incorrect, or it can't be corroborated, or it's simply irrelevant. Look, most journalists don't work in a vacuum. If they aren't reading the other articles, at least they know about them, and they're checking in with their own sources. The push for clicks and avoid getting scooped is real. That virtually all reliable sources covering a subject are ignoring some details is a good sign that we should, too. Woodroar (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Almost all articles that omitted the G predated ones that included the G, thus the whole point about vacuum is mostly irrelevant. Moreover,

• G can't be incorrect because it's a simple citation of a primary source
• It doesn't need to be corroborated because see p. 1
• It is relevant because it started the whole controversy in the first place

Moon darker (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's a citation to a primary source along with interpretation of that primary source. That is why it can be thought of as having a truth value and needing corroboration. Imagine I say "Magna Carta was first signed in 1215, and set the stage for video games some seven and a half centuries later." If someone says to me, "Wow, that's a really dumb thesis," a rejoinder of "but Magna Carta WAS signed in 1215!" is not exactly convincing. This also goes to your final point--it started the whole controversy in the first place according to whom? We have to approach Wikipedia articles as though behind a veil of ignorance (with apologies to John Rawls). If you come in knowing what an article should look like, you're bringing baggage. That doesn't mean you can't contribute, of course, it just means it is suboptimal. Then again, reasonable minds can certainly differ on any of these points. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Lets imagine both of us know absolutely nothing about the situation (did I understand your take on veil of ignorance correctly?).

We have 3 inseparable messages that set things in motion (all sources agree here, right?). Try to measure an emotional impact, on average, on a human being:

• The @Steam curator harassment group Sweet Baby Inc detected is lead by this person, @kabrutusrambo. Here's them trying to be slick so they don't get reported. Even with the discriminatory language filed off, the group itself still fails the code of conduct. (here we have dry, although loud, statements of facts, not much in terms of emotional load)
• anyway report the f**k out of this group (sudden change, but still, it's not a personal attack or anything like that, just a call for action on an inanimate object)
• and report the creator since he loves his account so much (now, this is both a personal attack and a threat to an account of a person who has invested in it for 13 years, as we know from a screenshot attached to a tweet. It might resonate with any normal human being, but it will certainly resonate with any gamer)

This primary source does not need an interpretation, it's a dry fact in the timeline of events: employee X stated Y1, Y2, Y3 which resulted in Z. The fact that reliable sources omit Y3 doesn't make it any less valuable than Y1 and Y2, that's just 3 parts of one statement. Do you really deem it suboptimal? There must be something really wrong with me, because I don't understand your point. It doesn't seem like not having any background knowledge on the topic makes things look any better in these tweets either. What is the justification for not including it besides "the sources we've already used don't include it for some reason", what IS the reason? If this tweet is so unimportant, maybe the gaming community wouldn't use it at all? How come nobody cares about the first two tweets, besides the statement about Steam CoC? Have a nice one. --Moon darker (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The "suboptimal" part is when an editor (and we all have been guilty of it from time to time) sets out to conform an article to what she "knows" happened. And that can be either a conscious or a subconscious tendency. From my point of view, nothing in the real world is as simple as "a + b resulted in c." There is an infinite chain of causation which led to a and b, and a context around c. Forgive my examples, but let me try one again: imagine you see a video of me yelling obscenities at and taking wild haymaker swings at a person. It would tend to make me look pretty bad. Now imagine another video of the same event, which shows that just prior, the target of my assaults spit on and said horrible things to my wife. The second video might not make you think I was justified in my reaction, but I think most people would agree that it would affect their view of the behavior. I guess in the end I am simply saying that a lot of perspectives can be brought to bear on an event. I know you have yours, and for all I know it is the correct one. But it simply isn't one that is currently shared by the reliable sources (though that may certainly change). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

the RS use din the article to quote her demand to close the group mentioned the same demand to the creator of the group, but this part of the sentence (and his creator) was not mentioned in wikipedia and it still remains not mentioned on the page.

(on the sidenote, it would be increadible easy to mention, that the account of the employee was banned to violating X-policies similar to the article already mentioned the changes to the discord/group functions for similar not clear defined violations)

For some reason some editors dont want it to be in the article, against the factual statements of both in RS. --2003:DF:A715:5000:6D2D:5361:A474:1C3E (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• The source doesn't seem to have meaningful WP:USEBYOTHERS or a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so I don't see anything that would make them a high-quality RS - their own ABOUT page can't do it; being a RS is about their reputation, not what they say about themselves. Of course, reliability is contextual, so they might be usable for uncontroversial things. But they're definitely not usable on Sweet Baby Inc., a contentious topic; and the particular claims you want to use them for (implying specific individuals are guilty of harassment) is WP:BLP-sensitive besides, so it would require high-quality sourcing. The rationale you give for want to use them is backwards - WP:FALSEBALANCE doesn't allow us to put our "thumb" on the scale and use weaker sources in order to reach what some editors personally feel is a better or more accurate balance; it might feel balanced to you, but in practice approaching balance that way it means that you'd be introducing your own perspective to the article. We determine balance and WP:DUE weight by the weight in the best available sources, weighted according to their reliability and significance, not based on editors' personal views of the subject; if the best available sources don't cover something, the answer is not to dig for lower-quality ones. --Aquillion (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviews from unreliable sources

In the process of cleaning up references to trash-tier sources that have been found generally unreliable in a broad general RFC, I've been removing reviews of material that are published in such GUNREL sources - on the basis that unreliable sources are prima facie WP:UNDUE, and generally don't meet the bar of being required in order to present an WP:NPOV of the topic.

Some have objected to this on my talk page - though they (repeatedly) didn't want to bring the sourcing discussion to WP:RSN for discussion. So I am.

The question for a given case is: Would it be a violation of NPOV not to include particular opinion statements sourced from a non-RS? Would the particular statements meet the high bar for author-sourced opinions per WP:RSOPINION to be WP:DUE? I didn't find many that IMO would reach that bar, but of course that's a matter for per-article discussion.

In almost all cases there are plenty of reviews in solid RSes, that clearly meet RSOPINION because they are in an RS - and where there aren't, it's arguable we shouldn't need to go to non-RSes for coverage. Non-RS reviews don't count for notability, for example.

Some posited that being a solid RS wouldn't be required for a review source. I must admit I don't buy this one.

A previous discussion of reviews in deprecated sources wasn't keen to make a carveout for them. The main issue was that the source was not reliable, so was unlikely to be an RSOPINION - that RSOPINION requires an RS. There's more chance for a merely GUNREL source meeting the RSOPINION bar - but it's prima facie unreliable so not DUE.

Something presented as RSOPINION in a GUNREL source requires that the author's opinion itself is notable. This gets fraught when a reviewer is slightly notable and has written in RSes previously or after, but the example at hand is in a GUNREL source.

The general opinion of RSN on notable persons' opinions that they've chosen to present in an unreliable source and not a reliable one has not been positive, any more than them presenting a blog post would automatically count as an RS or an expert SPS for RSOPINION. Individual cases may pass. (There's a Max Hastings cite from the deprecated Daily Mail on St Paul's Survives that's so far been kept on the basis of tremendous expertise, for example.)

Review statements on BLPs should be considered as a separate matter. If it's not from a solid RS, it cannot be used to make any statement about a living person. That sounds extremely broad because WP:BLP is broad. This is set out very clearly in RSOPINION as well. We will generally have quite sufficient reviews from solid RSes, thus providing an RSOPINION that complies with WP:BLP.

Broadly speaking: do we have the policy justification for a carve-out of RS sourcing rules for review opinions from GUNREL sources?

It would indeed be a carveout in cases where there had been a reliability RFC, meaning the carveout would require another RFC, I'd think - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Generally unreliable isn't a policy designation, it's a guideline. The question is if the source is reliable for the specific use. This really should be answered on a case by case basis and blanket/blind removals should be discouraged. Springee (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This presumes blanket/blind removals, which you haven't shown is happening here. What particular edits would you defend? - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You asked a generalized question. I gave a generalized reply. Springee (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Some reviews are there for a reason, no matter which source it came from and you removing them makes it less encyclopedic and literally takes away to what critics say about any films that has those sources. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't in any way address the policy issues or sourcing policies detailed above. Do you have a response to the points raised? The case where this would require an RFC-level carveout from an existing RFC needs addressing, for example - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Generally unreliable sources are presumed to be unreliable and should normally not be used unless there is specific consensus that an article (or group of articles) published by these sources is reliable or otherwise usable. WP:RSOPINION lowers the reliability of opinion pieces published in generally reliable sources; it does not elevate the reliability of opinion pieces published in generally unreliable sources and cannot be used as a method to enable generally unreliable sources to circumvent sourcing requirements. Opinion pieces from sources identified as unreliable are subject to WP:ABOUTSELF just like any other articles published in sources identified as unreliable, and the use of WP:ABOUTSELF is further restricted by WP:DUE.

Per WP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", and per WP:BURDEN, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." — Newslinger talk 20:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

In the earlier discussion that David Gerard pointed to, which (using Gerard-like words) wasn't keen to give David Gerard a licence to destroy what many other editors had put in, my comment was: Closers of the Daily Mail RfC stated that there was no intention to exclude opinions. See also the November 2019 thread Opinions in the Daily Mail and the February 2020 thread Daily Mail TV reviews. And David Gerard's mention of "policy" is misleading -- WP:NPOV would only be relevant if the source was in fact not reliable in the situation we're talking about, WP:RSP is essay class, RfC on WP:RSN is about misinterpreting a guideline, the actual real "policy" is WP:NOTCENSORED, if we followed it we would be requiring David Gerard to self-revert all the unjustified changes and apologize to the editors whose work he reverted without the courtesy to notify them. Here's a recent example: in the BLP of Philip Klein, AuthorAuthor had in 2020 added a cite to Washington Free Beacon, David Gerard in 2024 reverted -- and by destroying the statement made it seem that an accusation against Philip Klein had not been refuted. (An IP fixed it around the time that Philip Klein noticed the situation.) (Last I checked there was no RfC that conclusively supported the claim that Free Beacon was GU anyway.) Yet another objection: the topic heading here "Reviews from unreliable sources" is a WP:TALKHEADPOV violation, it's still allowed to think that a review in X is a reliable source for what a reviewer on X thinks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is not a valid justification for violating the WP:V policy or a valid method for overriding WP:RS. Listings on WP:RSP, including WP:FREEBEACON, are sourced from discussions on this noticeboard and represent community consensus (a policy). If you take issue with the entry for the Washington Free Beacon (RSP entry), you are welcome to start a new discussion or request for comment about the reliability of that source on this noticeboard, or start a discussion at WT:RSP to suggest a revision to that entry. — Newslinger talk 21:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

And David Gerard is welcome to start a new RFC on the reliability of the New York Post. But alas, here we are with this discursive and disruptive nonsense. Οἶδα (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

There's clearly ongoing disagreement about the reliability of the New York Post's entertainment coverage, so I've gone ahead and started the RfC at #RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six). — Newslinger talk 21:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Updated RfC link — Newslinger talk 09:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Newslinger brings up "community" but 5-10 discussers are not the same as about 47 million registered users. Newslinger brings up "WP:V" but the point about these opinions is that anyone who can click can see that they exist. Newslinger says that WP:NOTCENSORED does not override WP:RS, but WP:POLCON says "If a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence." A little higher up on WP:POLICIES everybody except Newslinger can I hope see that essay-class pages are even lower, so opening discussion on something as worthless as WP:RSP would a fortiori be worthless itself. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

As the verifiability policy states, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed." You are always welcome to start a new discussion or request for comment on this board if you disagree with the past consensus on this noticeboard that the Washington Free Beacon is a questionable source. Obviously, even the most popular discussions on Wikipedia noticeboards do not have millions of participants because the number of active editors who participate in project space discussion is much lower; the fact that there are less than a million editors in these discussions does not invalidate their comments on this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 20:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It invalidates your claim that this happy few represents the "community", as I said. As for your again bringing up WP:V: I've already explained "the point about these opinions is that anyone who can click can see that they exist". For yet another e.g. here's the latest movie review on New York Post: ‘Irish Wish’ review: Lindsay Lohan’s latest is a St. Patrick’s Day massacre . Now, I claim that page really is verifiably on the site nypost.com and the page verifiably contain a bunch of words in English. Which of these claims do you refuse to accept? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

As the first sentence of WP:V states, "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." That the source is published is not sufficient to establish verifiability. I see that you've already participated in the RfC below, which will clarify whether the New York Post is reliable for entertainment reviews like the one you linked. — Newslinger talk 23:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't need your bad RfC to see it's reliable in this context. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Overreach to remove all of these citations. As per WP:NYPOST NYP is problematic on NY politics and NYPD in particular; these are movie opinions. I don't edit movie pages and I do not read New York Post <shudder>, but Kyle Smith (critic) is a perfectly reputable critic and these mass deletion campaigns are hurting Wikipedia. Wikipedia should remain WP:NOTCENSORED. GUNREL has carve-outs precisely for situations such as this. When did Wikipedia go from being an attempt at building an encyclopedia to an effort at dismantling an encyclopedia?  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The New York Post has been found to be generally unreliable for factual reporting vis-à-vis stories like the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. But now David Gerard is waging an inane crusade to remove basic review criticism. Because apparently an established film critic's opinions on The Lorax soundtrack is not trustworthy and must be removed. Because apparently we are concerned about the factual basis of these subjective evaluations. Or that they are somehow given undue weight. And every single instance should be sought out and summarily removed. And we must believe this is an important task that is worth any of our time and improves the encylopedia. David "raised a lot points" here I guess to confuse people into concern. The RFC was clear enough. We do not need a carveout. Οἶδα (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think "New York Post" should only be used for film reviews and nothing more. I think David Gerard's actions are unfounded due to the fact that he has removed reviews on the film articles that came from New York Post, which makes thing less encyclopedic and David Gerard is removing based on his one-sided belief on the reliability of the sourcing of the New York Post, nothing more. That source may be questionable, but it doesn't mean removing reviews from it on film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Please don't do that per Peter Gulutzan, Mr.choppers, Springee and probably some other similar arguments that have and are likely to be posted about what I believe are mass deletions of content and/or removal of sources based on the result of what I believe is a single WP:RfC at WP:RS/N. The use of these RfCs to justify this kind of editing are troubling to say the least. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with David Tornheim et al. Context matters on usage of sources and RFC results on sources are guidelines, not policy, set by votes of very few editors usually. Mass deletions have to have stronger justification. Especially if they still considered reliable by other sources under WP:USEBYOTHERS. Wikieditor assessments are limited since most editors are not experts. RFC results are not policy or law on wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• While of course context matters, the entire point of the RFCs is to set a default - a baseline which people ought to take into consideration when determining whether to use a particular source or not. If people think that there are case-by-case arguments for using opinions from RSes, they need to actually present those arguments on a case by case basis; if no argument has been presented then it's reasonable for anyone to remove it (as a way of challenging it) and it shouldn't be restored until a rationale has been given and a consensus reached on it. I certainly don't think that WP:RSOPINION alone is a blanket explanation for using an unreliable source (otherwise, we could use anything as a source with in-line citations, which is certainly not current policy or practice.) The identity and expertise of the author are what matters there, especially in situations where it's an opinion published in an unreliable source - the question for RSOPINION is always "is this the opinion of someone whose opinion matters?" If the author is just a talking head or the like, and the source where they're publishing it is unreliable, obviously we can't use it just based on that. Basically, some people above are characterizing this as a blanket removal (which it is not) - but really, we need to look at it from the other side; some editors are mistakenly asserting that any opinion published anywhere, in any format, no matter where it was published and no matter whose opinion it is, is automatically usable as a source. That isn't the case; we can decide on a case-by-case basis, but if someone added an opinion by a non-expert published in a non-RS into an article with no explanation, it's fair to challenge that and remove it until / unless a rationale has been given and a consensus for inclusion has been demonstrated. --Aquillion (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  I generally agree with this. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I think "entertainment" is too broad a category. There's a massive difference between "review of a film/TV show" and "tabloid coverage of celebrities", both of which could fall under "entertainment". I wouldn't be particularly bothered if the NYPost's reviews were found to be usable, but I don't think this RfC should be taken as an endorsement of using tabloid gossip sources about celebrities. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, New York Post Entertainment has both reviews of film/TV shows and coverage of celebrities. The RfC doesn't look like something inspired by comments on David Gerard's talk page or on this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Survey (Entertainment coverage of the New York Post)

• Option 3 or Option 4. There is no need to make a carveout for the New York Post. The Post's entertainment coverage is part of it being a gossip tabloid at absolute best. This is not a paper of quality or renown. Given that so much of its entertainment coverage is about living persons, and the previous RFC noted the Post's fondness for fabrication, allowing any such carveout is likely to be a WP:BLP danger. There's a consistent flow of fresh BLP-violating trash from the Post, especially from Page Six but also from the rest of the paper/site. I would suggest the safest thing is to deprecate its entertainment coverage entirely. At the least, we must note that the New York Post must not be used for any statement concerning living persons - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• I don't know enough to speak on the Post, but for Decider, I'd say option 2. Some of their articles are clickbaity gossip and tend to over-dramatize stories (for instance, this), but those tend to fall under WP:TABLOID. On the other hand, they have some longer-form articles/interviews (example 1, example 2) and reviews (example) that seem perfectly fine and where I have no reason to suspect their reliability. Given that the least reliable articles seem to come from sources that shouldn't be used in any case, I see no reason to extend the "generally unreliable" moniker to all Decider articles. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. I've found the NY Post entertainment coverage to be mostly gossipy and i'd avoid it... In fact really all i would use the Post for is sports coverage, which is mostly ok as they employ some good sports writers.. everything else there I would avoid. Spanneraol (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Question - what does "entertainment" mean in this RFC? Celebrity gossip or film reviews?  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah... +1. For example this article from NYPost is a pretty standard concert review (not unlike other such reviews they post), and I'd have no issues with someone using it on Pixies (band). The celeb gossip crap posted on NYPost, Decider, and Pagesix.com is a different beast however and something I'd probably argue is generally unreliable. Endwise (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  I assumed we were talking about entertainment news reporting rather than reviews. Spanneraol (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  This RfC examines all entertainment coverage (including the entire scope of Decider) from these publications, which encompasses both film reviews and celebrity news. If you consider one of these publications to be more reliable for some topics than others, please say so. Please be detailed and specific in your responses, so the RfC closer can carefully evaluate the responses and give a comprehensive closing statement. — Newslinger talk 03:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2, weakly – The Post is tabloid-y but entertainment as a whole has elements of tabloid-y content. For instance, if I was working on an article about internet slang such as Looksmaxxing, I wouldn't have much of an issue using The Post for some cultural reception info. Also concurring with Endwise, I wouldn't have an issue with it for music or a film review. Celeb gossip shouldn't really be used from any tabloid anyway? I don't know much to speak on the other ones. TLA^tlak 03:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 on Decider and Page Six. I can't find many (or any significant) examples of RS referencing its reporting based on a cursory Google News search for terms like "Decider reported" or "according to Decider", etc. That said, I also can't find any instances of its reporting being specifically identified as inaccurate or unreliable. Given that, I think Option 3 is the best bet. Chetsford (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC); edited

03:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Discussion (Entertainment coverage of the New York Post)

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

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. — Newslinger talk 22:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio. — Newslinger talk 22:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

NYP I don't read and so have no opinion. I sometimes read Decider's "stream it or skip it" and haven't gotten any feeling their reviews are noticeably inferior to most other entertainment venues... What would be the justification for changing Decider's entertainment coverage to "generally unreliable" or "deprecated"? I am asking because this discussion needs to clearly summarize any reasons put forward to blacklist this site (and "please read several miles of previous discussion, it's all up there" doesn't cut it). CapnZapp (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any proposal to blacklist Decider. Since Decider is operated by the New York Post, which was found to be generally unreliable for factual reporting in the 2020 RfC, one of the goals of the current RfC is to determine whether Decider should be considered likewise or otherwise. — Newslinger talk 23:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Checking the page, it seems like the only (if not primary writer) right now is Nicholas Hautman, and per his about page, He joined the New York Post in 2021 after nearly six years at Us Weekly, where he started his career. He graduated from Hofstra University on Long Island in 2016 with a bachelor's degree in journalism. Spinixster (chat!) 01:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable suggestion, since Page Six is already listed as a sub-publication of the New York Post at WP:PAGESIX. I've added Page Six to the RfC. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 03:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

 Do not pre-empt any conclusions Please don't act as if your preference has already achieved consensus, User:David Gerard, as you did here. Your edit summary NYP is generally unreliable, prima facie WP:UNDUE is inaccurate. The current (pre-discussion) consensus is that NYP is generally unreliable "for factual reporting especially with regard to politics", not that it is generally unreliable in every aspect. CapnZapp (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

"generally" means "generally", not "not generally" - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

No it does not. Generally means generally only when there are no qualifiers. Otherwise those be pointless to add. Do not ignore the qualifiers. This entire RfC relies on the fact that you are wrong. CapnZapp (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with some users, David Gerard. You have been removing reviews on film article that come from the New York Post without any consideration of the consequences behind that and you did so by your own biased views of the reliability of the sourcing of New York Post. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

His editing history is especially egregious since he participated in this very discussion and still went ahead and made his edits, as if this wasn't still an open RfC that could possibly rule against his wishes. If and when it does, I hope and trust he will self-revert all his premature edits. CapnZapp (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I can understand David Gerard's point of view based on the phrasing of the 2020 RfC's closing summary. For example, the sentence "Gambling is generally a poor financial decision, especially when the gambler is in debt" states two things: that gambling is generally a poor financial decision, and that gambling is generally an even worse financial decision for gamblers who are in debt. Likewise, "Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics" means that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, and that it is generally unreliable to an even greater extent for political reporting. This RfC seeks to clarify whether the New York Post's entertainment coverage should be considered differently. — Newslinger talk 21:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"generally unreliable for factual reporting" means just that. It does not mean "generally unreliable" full stop. Otherwise those three words "for factual reporting" would not have been added. There is no uncertainty about what the earlier RfC meant. It specifically spelled out "factual reporting" meaning that the "generally unreliable" rating only applies to that. Other stuff - like entertainment - was specifically excluded from the decision. David Gerard didn't read it that way but that doesn't mean his reading is valid. Just to be crystal clear: This RfC does not seek to "clarify" this as if the earlier RfC was unclear. It can, however, seek clarification since the earlier RfC did not apply to entertainment articles. I trust and hope you and I agree on this, Newslinger. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Factual reporting does not exclude entertainment reporting. For example, Decider exclusively focuses on entertainment reporting, yet still publishes plenty of non-review articles that only make factual claims. The New York Post's and Decider's reviews and recommendations also contain factual claims, as most reviews do. The 2020 RfC's closing summary said that the New York Post is "Generally unreliable for factual reporting", and it did not say that the New York Post was any more reliable for entertainment reporting than it was for most topics, so the 2020 RfC was clear that the New York Post was considered generally unreliable for entertainment reporting as well. The current RfC offers editors an opportunity to re-evaluate the reliability of the New York Post's entertainment coverage. — Newslinger talk 13:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You yourself started this RfC quoting the current status quo: "Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics". This can only be read as the RfC taking a position on "factual reporting". Obviously facts can and will appear in reviews, but you didn't start this RfC to discuss the fringe cases when an editor cites a NYP review to verify a factual claim, you presumably started this RfC to see whether the community wants to discourage editors from using NYP reviews in entertainment articles. The context right here is David Gerard trying to justify his jumping the gun by saying that the earlier RfC does mean this already, but we should not express any understanding for that POV - we are specifically talking about it here and now, so taking action before allowing this discussion to conclude is obviously premature. CapnZapp (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if you mean the complete opposite, that NYP was previously considered generally unreliable overall but you want to see whether the community can exclude entertainment from that assessment, his actions remain just as premature - trying to get his edits in before this RfC changes the status quo is frowned upon, to say the least. (If this is your stance, our RS/P summary should have read "generally unreliable" full stop with no qualifiers) CapnZapp (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This User:David Gerard is just wasting a lot of people's time here on Wikipedia with his BS editing based on his own personal views; he tags pages for speedy deletion when there is zero reason to do so, removes content out of the blue, engages in edit wars; will someone block him or should we keep wasting time to keep this bully at bay? Itemirus (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM)

The U.S. Agency for Global Media is a U.S. government agency that runs the U.S. external service (Voice of America) and the surrogate services (RFE/RL, Radio y Television Marti, Alhurra), etc. Prior to 2017, these broadcasters were collectively controlled by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, a semi-independent board. After 2017, the board was abolished and they all now answer to a unitary appointee of the President of the United States (serving as his/her pleasure) and are 100-percent funded by the U.S. Government.
As a reminder:

• An external service reports on the sponsor nation from the sponsor nation's perspective (e.g. the BBC World Service uses British presenters to broadcast information about the UK to other nations).
• A surrogate service reports on a target nation using presenters from the target nation and is designed to act as a "surrogate" for the perceived absence of certain perspective in the target nation's own media (e.g. Russia's RT uses British and American presenters to broadcast information to the UK and USA largely about the UK and USA).

Questions:

1. Is the U.S. external service (Voice of America) RS pre-2017?
2. Is the U.S. external service (Voice of America) RS post-2017?
3. Are the U.S. surrogate services RS pre-2017?
4. Are the U.S. surrogate services RS post-2017?

Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• For what it's worth I think all four are non-RS but I'm interested in feedback from the community.
  Issues with the functional independence of Alhurra has been lightly touched on in our article on the subject, and we could probably have an entire article just about it. And most of these controversies are pre-2017. Until 1971, RFE/RL was secretly controlled by the CIA [40] - this only stopped after an expose revealed that fact. The ITU and others (e.g. [41], [42]) have said the broadcasts of Radio y Television Marti are designed more to foment subversion in Cuba than disseminate news, and even the U.S.' own audit agency (the GAO) has said it engages in "propaganda". There's a parade of individual examples of serious issues associated with its reporting that are too numerous to mention (e.g. [43]). The U.S. State Department famously ordered VOA to spike an interview with Mullah Omar [44], etc. etc. Chetsford (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• @Chetsford: Since Radio Free Asia (RSP entry) and Voice of America (RSP entry) have both had their reliability examined in previous requests for comment in March 2021 and in September 2021, respectively, would you like to make this discussion an RfC? — Newslinger talk 03:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that may be premature at this point and am mostly trying to get an informal sense as to whether it might be appropriate to treat all of the USAGM brands (either pre or post-2017) as a single evaluative unit for a future RfC. But maybe I'm unnecessarily elongating the process. What do you think? Chetsford (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think your approach is reasonable and I like how your framing of the questions forces editors to consider aspects of these broadcasters that may be overlooked with a broader "Is X reliable?" question. Personally, I believe these four questions would make an excellent RfC statement (though I'd rephrase them to replace "RS" with something clearer), with the remainder of the text in your 03:11, 17 March 2024 edit positioned underneath. Editors who want to offer separate evaluations for each broadcaster can do so in their responses and the RfC closer should be able to summarize the consensus for each broadcaster separately.

  If the only thing holding you back from launching the RfC is uncertainty on the phrasing, I'd wait for a couple more comments to confirm that the phrasing is appropriate, then I'd move straight to the RfC. The 2021 Voice of America RfC had high participation, so a new RfC would be needed to overturn its results. — Newslinger talk 05:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Newslinger - that makes total sense. My reticence in treating each of these one-by-one is that they're essentially just different logos on a single organization (not unlike Taco Bell and KFC being two different menus of Yum Brands versus two different companies) with a single controlling mind and editorial staff who seamlessly float between the various brands; ergo I find it hard to believe we might say "X is reliable, while Y is unreliable". In any case, I'll plan to follow your advice and reformat this as an RfC after a few more comments. Chetsford (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused. Have something changed since 2021 that merits a new evaluation? Or are you merely interested in learning whether the community is prepared to extend the same reasoning that applied to Radio Free Asia/Voice of America in 2021 to more brands under the Agency for Global Media umbrella? But which would those be, in that case? (= please list everything you folded up under "etc") CapnZapp (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I should add that nothing suggests BBC's World Service, which you list above, is considered anything but reliable, despite its UK perspective. (Just checked WP:RS/P and BBC has only one entry and it is green) That is, just the fact alone that Voice of America is a state-sponsored "external service" does not exclude it from being reliable. Of course, many state-sponsored services are thinly veiled propaganda machines that we do not consider reliable, but we don't do that simply because they are "external services". CapnZapp (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't doubt the BBC World Service is a RS, and I've used it frequently as such myself. And, I agree, the mere fact that a media outlet is state sponsored does not make it unreliable. Chetsford (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask if this external/surrogate terminology is widely used? I am embarrassed to say I'm not familiar with it. Do you believe the distinction is important in determining reliability? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Newslinger, BobFromBrockley and CapnZapp: Based on the feedback I've received from you all, I've drafted what I intend to introduce as an RfC here [45]. Specifically, I've narrowed it to exclude Voice of America. I'd appreciate further feedback, if you're interested in providing any. Chetsford (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Are qualified bias sources reliable?

TamilNet and NESOHR, which have been accepted as qualified pro-rebel sources in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources have been used as the sole source for many alleged attacks on civilians by the Sri Lankan government in an extensive list. I am not challenging the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation classification of the TamilNet and the NESOHR as qualified source (pro-rebel), however asking here if these WP:BIAS/WP:QS can be used as sole source for serious allegations against the Sri Lankan Government? Cossde (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You had said earlier that you will respect the admin's verdict on the vetting of qualified sources in the SL reconciliation project, which can be used with explicit attribution (which they have been). But now you are reopening the same discussions that have already been done to death here and and at the project. You are again re-challenging the admin's verdicts. The above sources were not regarded as questionable sources (WP:QS), but qualified sources. You are conflating two different things (again), even after being told this before: [46]. Oz346 (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, my use of the WP:QS tag here was in reference to the apparent conflict of interest these sources have in this article as WP:QS states Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest . As I said before I not challenging SLR classification of the TamilNet and NESOHR as qualified source (pro-rebel), in fact I am basing my argument here on its review and classification. Per NPOV Bias in source states A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether. . In which case is it correct to add controversial content with TamilNet or NESOHR as the sole source. In any case both TamilNet and the NESOHR appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources in these cases as well, which questions this practice of using these two sources in this article. Cossde (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cossde Qualified sources are subclass of reliable sources as the admin Sebastian explained in this old discussion. The project you linked to states: "Qualified source: A source that may be reliable in certain contexts, but always needs to be used with a qualification (also called “attribution”) such as “pro-rebel”, “state owned” or the name itself." Therefore, they can be used with explicit attribution. Please read the old discussion where a consensus already exists before opening new discussions about the same topics.--- Petextrodon (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The Christian Chronicle on the International Churches of Christ

Could I have input on whether The Christian Chronicle would be considered reliable and independent for claims about the International Churches of Christ? This has come up at Talk:International Churches of Christ#WP:RECENT. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

From their website "An international newspaper for Churches of Christ". Does anything more need to be said about independence? TarnishedPath^talk 10:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

According to our article on the ICOC, it and the Churches of Christ split from one another in 1993, and it's the latter that the paper has an association with. However, both the fact that the two groups have a common origin and the fact that the paper is associated with a "rival" (for want of a better word) raise concerns about its objectivity. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Then there's their about page which suggest they have absolutely no editorial policy at all. I don't know how this could be considered reliable. TarnishedPath^talk 10:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Am I right that this is about a tiff between two different religious groups, ICOC and a separate organization called COC? And CC is published by COC (not by ICOC)? In that case it seems like it would be appropriate for noncontroversial statements about COC, but little else. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

So the issue at hand is a quote where the churches of Christ (a 1-2million member church group) at a meeting held I believe at their main university apologised for using the word “cult” in their description of the breakaway group the ICOC. Would that newspaper be a reliable source for that statement? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Is lifehacker reliable for podcasts

I've cited LifeHacker (lifehacker.com) fairly often when writing articles about podcasts (i.e. CrossBread, Imaginary Advice and Earth Break). I recently started using WP:UPSD and noticed that it flags the source as generally unreliable, which made me want to investigate further. The source isn't listed at RSP yet, however, it looks like it's been discussed a few times here at RSN (i.e. in 2011, 2012, 2020, and 2021). It seems like most of the previous discusses weren't impressed with the source. The website appears to have been aquired by Ziff Davis about a year ago now and has a list of staff and editorial policies (including a corrections policy). The site seems decent to me, but maybe I'm missing something? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Daily Sabah reliable sources?

It was previously discussed but it need 1 more discussion as explained here [[47]]. Daily Sabah is claimed a propaganda outlet for the Turkish ruling AK Party [[48]], spreading fake news [[49]], https://web.archive.org/web/20190408115630/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/19/the-u-s-tried-to-kill-erdogan-says-editor-in-chief-of-turkish-daily/ and atacking other journalists [[50]]. Is Daily Sabah a reliable sources for Wikipedia? Shadow4dark (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_321#RfC:_Daily_Sabah. Do you mean "need 1 more discussion so I can put it on WP:RSP"? I have to say, starting discussions for that purpose doesn't strike me as a necessarily good idea, and I think it goes against the spirit of WP:RSPCRITERIA. Adding stuff to WP:RSP is not a goal in itself, let it grow "naturally".

That said, per previous discussion I don't think it should be used for anything important. I just used it in Yine Bir Gülnihâl, seemed ok-ish to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes but a sources that claims that Turkish President Erdogan will be killed by U.S should be never used on Wikipedia. Shadow4dark (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Per [51], that view is largely in effect, WP:RSP-mention or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Middle East Monitor

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your summary, this is highly concerning particularly combined with the (probably fringe) views described in the page.

I would consider this worthy of an RfC after insofar as criteria are met, is that something you would agree with? FortunateSons (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

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

All the MEMO report says is that El Mostaqbal reported this. And they did. And it also says The allegations have been denied by both the Ukrainian embassy in Egypt as “Russian propaganda”, while Orascom Development, the owner of the El Gouna resort issued a statement saying the reports were “completely false.”' MEMO does not report that this is true, they report that it was reported and that the both the Ukrainian embassy and the Egyptian government denied it. All of that is true. nableezy - 16:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That seems fine then. I wouldn't say this could cast any doubt on a source's reliability.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It attributes some to El Mostaqbal; others it puts in its own voice:

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

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

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

Al-Alawi, having never existed, also never had a brother.

Further, regardless of what it puts in its own voice and what it attributes, I find it very concerning for a source to be pushing fringe conspiracy theories without any level of scepticism, and for it to fail to correct that error when it is raised with them - to me, those are indications that the source is generally unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it attributes that too. You're quoting out of context. What it says about the body is Al-Alawi’s body was discovered in the Red Sea city of Hurghada, with fractures and bruises found on the body. The cause of death was due to a cerebral hemorrhage as a result of a severe brain injury. The report, citing a source, also disclosed that the journalist had been beaten by a group of people. That is, once again, citing the report. And there is no error in what they report, they are saying that so and so reported such and such. And that is true. They also say that so and so say it is Russian propaganda. That is also true. Your claim that they are "pushing fringe conspiracy theories" is completely unsubstantiated, they are relaying what was reported and attributing it to who reported it, and also attributing who says it is not true. It has a link to the interview, making that attributed as well. You are misrepresenting what they are reporting. nableezy - 22:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No, that is attributing to the report that "the journalist" had been beaten by a group of people. It's not attributing the claim that he died.

Further, the interview is linked, but MEMO is saying in its own voice that the interview was given by Al-Alawi's brother - the brother who doesn't exist.

Regardless, is it not concerning that MEMO spends so little time verifying its stories that it is literally pushing Russian conspiracy theories, stories that it refuses to retract? This is not the behavior of a reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It is very clearly saying all this is from the report. You can tell that by the word "also". What is there to retract? That El Mostaqbal reported this? They did. nableezy - 22:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

My reading differs - the "also" refers to their earlier explicit mention of the report. And what there is to retract is the entire story; they are presenting - and thus promoting - Russian conspiracy theories as credible, saying things such as the report disclosed rather then the report alleges. The fact that they attribute parts (but not all - clearly you at least agree that the story presents both Al-Alawi and his brother as real people) doesn't change that. BilledMammal (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The story they are "presenting" is that El Mostaqbal reported this. That remains true. At most it is missing a "purported" in front of brother when linking to the interview. They very clearly are reporting who said what, and who said its not true. They even include the claim that it is Russian propaganda. There isnt any part of what they are actually reporting that is an issue. nableezy - 23:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That really isn’t how an average person would read the article, and even if it was, their statement and lack of retraction is nevertheless a reason not to use them in any area with controversy. FortunateSons (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Im aware of your feelings on sources you dislike, along with your efforts to remove them from certain topics, you dont need to repeat them multiple times in the same section. There isnt anything in this to retract, what they reported is accurate, and I see no reason why this source is not perfectly usable. If you feel they should issue a correction there is a link at the bottom of the story for you to contact them. nableezy - 23:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Even you agree they present the brothers as real people; don’t you think they need to retract that?

And the NYT has already contacted them; their response was concerning, as I quoted above. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That doesn’t appear to be true at all. nableezy - 13:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Which aspect? BilledMammal (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

That it is their response and not some independent reporter's who writes for a different site. nableezy - 13:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if we disagree on that I hope you can see their failure to retract this story as concerning. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That is certainly different from using “alleged” at the very least, if they are using such a source. Additionally, the conduct described above is certainly still concerning. FortunateSons (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Selfstudier that this discussion seems a misuse of the noticeboard. It is not relevant to some article and the publication isn't in RSP. But looking at the dicussion the thought occurred to me, I bet it has to do with NGO Monitor, and sure enough we have [52]. Why am I not surprised. NadVolum (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s not misuse of this Noticeboard to discuss whether a widely used source that we now discover has a penchant for pushing Russian disinformation and conspiracy theories is reliable.

As far as I know, this has no relation to NGO monitor. BilledMammal (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

A "penchant" denotes a widespread tendency, "pushing" denotes a conscious decision to spread something, again with the strong implication of repetition. Here we have a single report, which attributes the story to somebody else and states that it has been denied.

I agree that, if MEM regularly published articles sourced to Russian propaganda, or if they had published this story as fact and repeatedly asserted its truth we would have to look at whether it was reliable for news relating to the Russia/Ukraine conflict. But that is not what this is about, is it? --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I say a penchant because of Aris’ response when challenged. The issue appears systemic.

Further, while some is attributed, not all is, despite the entire story being disinformation. ::::But that is not what this is about, is it? This is about the reliability of the source, nothing else? BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Bah, one not even much of an incident, and it is systemic? Then every newsorg is unreliable by that standard. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s systemic because MEMO told the NYT "we don’t make any attempt to verify stories before publishing them". BilledMammal (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I can’t find anything by Ben Aris on MEMO. I can’t find he has any position there either. His Twitter profile doesn’t mention MEMO, so I don’t know what his unwilling to verify things has to do with MEMO. It also isn’t a normal thing to use quote marks for things nobody ever said. nableezy - 10:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears MEMO doesn’t publicly list the author of their articles. And I was paraphrasing - or do you think I was doing so inaccurately? BilledMammal (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

What we can say for certain is that NYT is attributing the unsubstantiated claim to Ben Aris (whose name doesn't appear anywhere on MEMO's website). M.Bitton (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

He doesn’t even say he writes for MEMO and the sentence structure is he referenced the MEMO article, and from his twitter he does. But he writes for BNE Intellinews. Paraphrases don’t use quotes. If anything that would be a sign of unreliability and disinformation. I see no evidence whatsoever that he writes for MEMO, much less represents them and their editorial policies. nableezy - 13:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

My reading differs - and clearly so do others here. BilledMammal (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

What others? Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There is one immediately above my reply? BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Please provide any evidence that he writes for MEMO or has any position there. A listing of his articles at MuckRack shows nothing at all. He is also not listed anywhere on MEMO's list of editors and regular contributors. Please provide any evidence at all for the claim that MEMO said anything like what you say they said. nableezy - 13:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

At least they attributed the claims, unlike the New York Times (enjoy reading this discussion about the self-declared beacon of journalistic integrity). M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on where the linked thread discussed attribution? The only comments I can find when searching by term are my own. FortunateSons (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The linked thread is about a fabricated story by NYT (it goes without saying that attribution is way above those who sink that low). M.Bitton (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I am aware, I participated in that thread. However, the claims about the article in the NYT are both highly disputed and unrelated to the issue of attribution. As the New York Times generally enjoys a high reliability and the linked discussion did not come to a different conclusion, I am confused about the purpose of your comment. Could you elaborate? FortunateSons (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Simple, if the NYT can screw up, so can MEMO and the NYT screwup is rather more severe than anything MEMO is allegedly guilty of. All this is just trying to make a mountain of a very small molehill. Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

ChatGPT and Academic Journals

Given some recent discussions in online spaces such as Reddit and Twitter regarding the use of ChatGPT in academic journals, I think it's worth discussing here. Searching terms such as "I am an AI language model" -chatgpt -llm and "As of my last knowledge update" -chatgpt -llm in Google Scholar bring up concerns. Some research also indicates that peer reviewers are increasingly using LLMs to review work (see Liang et al., 2024). Some journals seem more prone to these issues (e.g., I noticed Radiology Case Reports has had multiple articles with LLM phrasing), but I'm not sure what the best practice looks like moving forward. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Why not give those journals the same treatment as other websites caught using AI? Reliability of CNET and Kotaku were both downgraded due to their undisclosed use of AI. Formerly credible journals can go trashy. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of media attention to academic journals, but examples like above and whatever this is is a clear giveaway of its quality. ♠ Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with what's been said above, I think the best process here is to bring up specific problems (including unreviewed AI-generated content) with specific journals, and if the evidence is convincing, and deprecate them. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• It's worth pointing out that Google Scholar includes a lot of stuff that is... not scholarly, and some stuff that is not even attempting to portray itself as scholarly and is definitely not an WP:RS by any other standard. That much isn't new - you can't just rely on something as a source because it appears there. And even some actual journals aren't reliable when you look closer. If you need a quick at-a-glance measure, citation counts can tell you something - it's very noticeable that none of the papers in that search have ever been cited by anyone. --Aquillion (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This is becoming a bigger issue as time goes on. AI can assist academic journals such as for detecting plagiarism, but I do think that AI content, if used by a journal, may still end up going though editorial oversight, which is what WP:RS does require. I know that some peer reviewed articles have been generated manually (without AI) to test if journals catch the nonsense and even then they have passed peer review... Ramos1990 (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of stunts like that. Academic publishing has never relied on the idea that every single thing that gets published is the perfect unvarnished truth; the field as a whole leans towards publishing everything somewhere, it just won't get into reputable journals. That's why it's important to look at where something was published and whether it has been cited by anyone else, rather than just whether it has been published in a journal-shaped object. --Aquillion (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You know how we are thankful when some obvious troll opens up a disruptive ANI report, because it helps us spot and exclude the troll? Well, it's the same thing when journals publish articles with the phrase "I am an AI language model" in it. Be thankful, as it helps us spot and exclude the unreliable journal. I do not believe this is a problem in real scholarship, but I do think it's going to be a great way to differentiate between real scholarship and pseudoscholarship in Google Scholar search results. Levivich (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Communication and Information

Hello, I wanted to ask whether the following source fulfills the requirements of reliable sources:

Ruben, Brent D. (2001). "Models Of Communication". Encyclopedia of Communication and Information. Macmillan Reference. ISBN 978-0-02-865386-0.

For the publisher, see Macmillan Reference. For the author, see Brent David Ruben. The article is also available online at [53]. An IP insists that this source is unreliable and keeps removing it from the GA article Models of communication. This is being discussed here. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable for what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello AndyTheGrump and thanks for taking a look. The source was used to support how the term models of communication is defined. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

What specific text is it being cited for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The claim removed was Models of communication ... try to provide a simple explanation of the process by highlighting its most basic characteristics and components. As simplified pictures, they only present the aspects that, according to the model's designer, are most central to communcation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Well yes, that's what the source says, closely paraphrased. And given how non-controversial it is, simply explaining what a 'model' is, I can't see how anyone could suggest it isn't reliable. Whether it is actually appropriate to begin the section it is being cited for with such a generalised definition is another question, but not one for this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment. Do you think it is too closely paraphrased as per WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE? This can often be a challenge with definitions since one has to be very careful with one's choice of words. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think the argument you’re having is fundamentally about source reliability; I suggest WP:3O instead. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There are various arguments involved in the discussion, including WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, WP:UNCIVIL, and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. I used the notice board here to address this one since addressing all of them at once is probably not feasible. I'll see how this develops and I'll keep your suggestion in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Liveuamap

https://liveuamap.com aggregates social media posts and plots them on a map. It originated during the 2014 events in Ukraine and thereafter became especially well-known for its aggregation of social media content regarding the Syrian civil war, which it used to create a detailed, constantly-updating map of wartime factional control over the country (https://syria.liveuamap.com). You can learn more about this website at the Wikipedia entry for Liveuamap.

I managed to locate two previous RSN discussions involving Liveuamap. An April 2022 discussion recognized that the website is an aggregator which is only as reliable as its own sources. Editors also came to the conclusion that this edit, which cited Liveuamap to determine the control status of a town in Ukraine, violated WP:RS, in part because Liveuamap was itself citing a Telegram Messenger post for that particular piece of information.

While not the main topic of discussion, Liveuamap was mentioned in passing in an April 2017 discussion, where it one editor argued that it was not RS. Another editor mentioned its value as one of the few websites hosting a full, frequently-updated map of the Syrian civil war, but did not try to make the case that it was RS.

The infoboxes of Wikipedia articles on military conflicts often contain maps created by editors on Wikimedia Commons. The question I am posing here relates to a discussion at Talk:Syrian civil war#Infobox map, which has led to a suggestion that the geographic data (i.e. front lines and zones of factional control) from Liveuamap's Syrian map be copied onto a user-generated map on Wikimedia Commons and then used in the Wikipedia article's infobox; the previous map was derived from a Twitter account, and the file was determined unsuitable for Wikipedia by consensus. A supporter of this idea argues that Liveuamap ought to be considered RS when used to draw maps that appear on Wikipedia, due to the fact that Liveuamap has itself been used as a source by reliable news organizations like Al Jazeera and others including BBC and CNN, though I am not personally aware of the latter two having cited it.

Is the geographic data on Liveuamap reliable enough to derive maps that will appear on Wikipedia from it? Thank you for your time. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I would be hesitant to use them, that’s for sure. Are you willing to elaborate on their “editorial” process? That part on their wiki page is short and potentially out of date. FortunateSons (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think they have an editorial process. It’s user-generated content, often from anonymous social media posters, being given geolocation metadata. It’s only as reliable as the tweets it aggregates. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

LiveUAmap is nice, but it's often out of date, the information is frequently vague, and the locations are frequently a bit odd. Not necessarily wrong, just odd. I wouldn't consider them a source suitable for wikipedia use. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I would consider liveuamap.com to be unreliable when citing content on Wikipedia. With an exception being made for it when used to cite ongoing conflict maps, in which case it should be reliable. Liveuamap is the only source that maps several conflicts, such as the Syrian civil war and Yemeni civil war with great detail to the extent that which side controls each village. Most news outlets, such as Al Jazeera, have cited liveuamap in the past in when showing maps of the Ukraine war and Syrian civil war. Ecrusized (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Open wiki citation problem

I recently spotted and had to remove a concerning amount of contents that cite self-published sources, particularly Namuwiki, a South Korea-based wiki platform. This is an open wiki that allows anonymous editors and has little-to-no moderation (no requirement for reliable sources, for starters), which should disqualify it under WP:SPS, yet there were over 100 articles that cited it. Most of them were Korea-related topics, but some others were not, including this numerous citations found in List of paratrooper forces and the one for Elsa (Frozen), a good article.

Namuwiki is already listed as "Considered unreliable" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources, but considering how this has spreaded over different parts of Wikipedia, it should be on the radar. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

defence-blog.com

Should we revisit the defence-blog.com reliability? There was a discussion in the past, please see here. Their website has grown since; the about page clearly states who they are [54]; the content is written in a professional manner. My observation over the time (as I follow various defense related news) is that their publications are generally accurate. Thoughts? -- Mindaur (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I would generally be very hesitant to use them. If we wanted to use them (they probably don’t meet the requirements for experts (or can you show that they do?), so as a news source, we would at minimum need:

1. More details on when and how they are Wikipedia:USEDBYOTHERS, particularly by RS, governments and (if applicable) academics institutions.

2. Elaboration on their editorial content: do they have independent editors, how are stories chosen, etc.

3. A clear distinction between them and a Wikipedia:Selfpub.

If you can get at least 2 (better 3), it might be worth a in-depth discussion, otherwise we would probably consistently apply the policies detailed in the last discussion and not use it. FortunateSons (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I think they still have a number of issues, as far as I can tell while the quantity of work has increased it doesn't much seem like the quality has. It still looks like churnalism (not sure the related COPYVIVO concerns are done either). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with FortunateSons and Horse Eye's Back. I'm inclined to say they're not WP:RS. First, they are definitively not RS for matters related to the foreign and security policy of Ukraine as the site's controlling mind, Dylan Malyasov, was decorated by Ukraine just last year for activities "as a journalist". Given that the editorial staff of the site is just three in number with him sitting at its apex, this suggests an absence of WP:INDEPENDENT editorial thought. Outside of that issue, however, I don't see them widely cited by sources we've already established as RS. When I search Google News for the phrases "according to Defence Blog" and "Defence Blog reports" I get a small smattering of hits to Business Insider and The National Interest. Chetsford (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Bobby Singh Bansal and Autar Singh Sandhu

Article: Battle of Michni

Are Bobby Singh Bansal's Remnants of the Sikh Empire and this book published by Autar Singh Sandhu in 1935 reliable?

Bobby Singh Bansal is a self proclaimed historian, a title seemingly conferred upon him through his interests as opposed to any educational background or training. His current profession is a city councillor in the UK and he used to be a business student prior to undertaking several projects related to history and film making. Both of his books published thus far are technically self published, his earliest book: The Lions Firanghis: Europeans at the Court of Lahore was published by Coronet House and his other book, Remnants of the Sikh Empire, was published by Hay House. There does not appear to be any in depth scholarly reviews of his work.

Autar Singh Sandhu, as far as I can tell as there is a dearth of any information available about him, published a book about Hari Singh Nalwa in 1935-[55]. That seems to be the only book he authored.

A user is insisting both sources are reliable; at first erroneously claiming Autar Singh Sandhu published a book on the same subject in 1987-[56] and then on the basis that both Bobby Singh Bansal and Autar Singh Sandhu appear in some reliable secondary sources as a citation, though I don't think that counts for much as books often cite a large corpus and not every citation within them is reliable; many primary sources are used as citations as well but we cannot use them as standalone sources in Wikipedia. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Massacre of the Innocents

This is about [57]. My own take is that sources are bunk. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Certainly not enough to affirm the historicity of the pericope. The French source is usable enough, but really only says "this is in the New Testament." The Veracity source scans as a devotional blog to me, with none of the indicia of reliability I would want in a source. That said, my knowledge is obviously incomplete. I will say I am not sure I love the descriptor "myth" here, but I would certainly object to any wording implying that the massacre is somehow historical fact. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait what. If something's in a painting it's not a myth!? This changes everything. Bon courage (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The First 'source' cited isn't a source at all. Not for anything relevant anyway. Definitely not for whether the 'massacre' actually happened, since it says nothing on that question. The second at least expresses an opinion on the matter, but since it appears to be the opinion of a 'Computer Network Engineer', clearly doesn't meet WP:RS. Both sources are useless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

ProPakistani.pk

We've been relying heavily on ProPakistan,pk a Pakistani news platform, for various articles, including many BLPs. However, it's crucial to note that ProPakistan.pk isn't a conventional news outlet but rather a PR startup. Their content often comprises paid articles and press releases which implies a potential bias. Therefore, their reporting may not always be impartial or reliable. How should we address the use of ProPakistan in WP articles, particularly BLPs? Saqib (talk · contribs) 20:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I have combed through their website and performed an extensive Google search, I did not find an evidence of them being a PR firm or their content being paid articles. If there is an evidence to the contrary then it should be provided here. As it comes to bias, a source does not have to be neutral to be reliable. They do not seem to be a self published website as their about page shows a rather large editorial staff. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Their "about'" page mentions board members of ProPakistani, and consists mostly of individuals heading different categories in the organisation. The CEO of ProPakistani also owns Eikon7, an advertising and digital marketing agency and this also raises questions about ProPakistani impartiality. A closer look at their writing style reveals sensational, puffery and sometimes milsleading articles, such as dubbing Dr. Asim Hussain as the richest man on earth or misrepresenting Waqar Zaka as a cryptocurrency expert. These instances, along with occasional engagement in fake news [58] [59][60] and promotional content like [61] [62], highlight the need for careful consideration before declaring ProPakistani as a RS, especially on BLPs. Just a friendly note, I hope you're not hounding me as you're not regular here. --Saqib (talk · contribs) 14:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

We would not know with certainty whether those are instances of fake news or promotional content unless we have something to the contrary in other reliable sources. As for your allegation of hounding, I am really not sure why do you always jump to bad faith conclusions, you could have assumed good faith by thinking that I might have added WP:RSN to my watchlist given we had lengthy discussion about another source recently. Just so you know I have over 3,000 pages in my watchlist, many of them I never edited before and with over 45,000 edits you cannot accuse me of hounding if I show up anywhere on WP at this time, just look at your contributions to find out how many different pages you contributed in last 24 hours and then see on how many of them I showed up to hound you, additionally this was not the forum to accuse me of hounding as it will drive away the focus from the actual matter for which we came here for but since you accused me, I had a right to reply. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Both pieces of news were debunked here and here. You could have done a simple Google search to verify this. And I've actually discovered several more instances of fake news published by ProPakistan. I will provide them later. --Saqib (talk · contribs) 17:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Please remember WP:ONUS when you demand others to perform searches for you, both of the pieces by ProPakistani talk about Iran "warning" Pakistan and Iran "threatening" Pakistan. Warning and threatening to impose fine is not akin to actually slapping the fine. The second link you provided is a twitter link, how can something from twitter debunk anything? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Israeli based news sources

Hey everyone. I thought of dropping in here and asking if there are consensus for the use of the following Israeli-based news sources particularly in the coverage of the ongoing Gaza War. I've seen Al-Jazeera being used for coverage of Israel-Palestine topics, alongside other Israeli news sources. Al-Jazeera has been considered reliable, but I'm unsure what about considering Israeli-based sources?

• Times of Israel
• ynetnews.com
• The Jerusalem Post

--ZKang123 (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, all of them are used, and generally considered biased in regards to the conflict but reliable; they are cited by others.Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources does not list anyone but Haaretz. FortunateSons (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post is highly misleading, given its record in war propganda; example when it mocked a dead Palestinian child claiming they were a doll. They did indeed apologize and retract the statement, but that just shows you how they operate. As for the Times of Israel, they are misleading in some aspects, including how for example they take great care to cast doubt into Gaza's casualty figures, even falsely claiming they were partly due to misfired Palestinian rockets; while at the same time, mentioning nothing of the friendly fire accidents when talking about Israeli casualties; they literally seem to do this mental gymnastics on every article they publish on the war. As for Ynet, I never read it so I wouldn't know. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

There is credible reporting that Gaza’s casualties are partially caused by misfired rockets, both historically and currently by RS, so at least some deaths due to misfires are pretty clear, something significantly less certain regarding friendly fire (whose highest credible count during Oct 7 is less than 20 and which received coverage , plus 3 hostages later, as well as about 20 soldiers). FortunateSons (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with what I wrote. In every article about the war they list the casualties on both sides in the last paragraph. In it they cast doubt on the 30k figures on Palestinian side, including with them the claim of casualties due to misfired Palestinian rockets, as if that’s a significant portion; ‘’’while at the same time’’’, mentioning nothing of friendly fire on the 1200 Israeli figure. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Because there is no broad support (at least by western RS) for any significant amount of casualties by friendly fire on October 7., with some sporadic casualties (our own article lists less than 15 people). FortunateSons (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies and retractions mean that their editorial process is working and are generally a good sign. Are there any other examples of JPost's supposed lack of reliability? Alaexis_¿question? 21:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I have found ToI to be reliable in general (except for some reason when the article is bylined ToI staff rather than a named reporter). JP is awful, pretty much a government mouthpiece since the war started and ynet is OK most of the time but not always.Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how they are “awful” in the context of unreliability? FortunateSons (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

They seem to mark the worst stuff as opinion so I'd say they're reasonably reliable as far as biased sources go. I agree with Selfstudier about TOI. NadVolum (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Times of Israel is rather reliable and independent, and frequently criticizes the Israeli government. It obviously takes an Israeli POV, but still reliable. Jerusalem Post, in what little I've seen, is more sensationalist and populist in tone. Even regardless of bias, it's a poor quality source in general. I don't know Ynetnews well enough to comment. Jeppiz (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Ynet is fine, ToI is fine, JPost is generally closer to garbage than fine. Better than things like i24 and obviously Arutz Sheva, but closer to that end of the spectrum than Haaretz, Yedioth Ahronoth, and ToI. nableezy - 22:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

educationengland.org.uk

• (old url) educationengland.org.uk: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.educationengland.org.uk
• education-uk.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.education-uk.org

The site is created and run by a single individual with no evidence of satisfying WP:RS. Despite this, it is currently being used in over 190 articles in the main namespace. Therefore, I would like to reach a consensus on whether it is considered reliable before proceeding to remove all links. Thank you. GSS ^💬 07:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like WP:QUESTIONABLE because, by his own admission, the articles and comments on the website are all primary, written and published by the site owner. There appears to be no editorial oversight or independent fact-checking. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Glane23: Yeah, that's what I tried to look for but couldn't find. It seems like the founder is the only person writing articles, and there is no fact-checking machinery in place. So, I guess it's fair enough to remove the links for not meeting the requirements set at WP:RS. GSS ^💬 18:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiLeaks on its own article

More eyes needed for a question raised at Talk:WikiLeaks, about citing WikiLeaks on the WikiLeaks article as a primary source where the document is discussed elsewhere (RfC suggests can be acceptable), and for content about WikiLeaks itself (RfC does not cover). It thus revolves around two questions:

1. Can WikiLeaks document pages be cited on the WikiLeaks article as a primary source where the document is used by reliable secondary sources?

2. Can WikiLeaks be cited for information about itself e.g. "On [date] WikiLeaks said it published X document"?

Cambial — foliar❧ 08:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your first question, this was basically the consensus of the last RfC, so I see no problems with that. Of course, it *may* be cited, if this adds value to the the article and doesn't violate other policies.

Regarding the second question, this seems to satisfy the WP:ABOUTSELF creiteria, so I don't see problems from the reliability standpoint, but it may not be DUE if no other sources reported on this. Alaexis_¿question? 09:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I asked yesterday about going to a Noticeboard. I thought we would agree on the question and board first. Of course you ignored that question again and went here without agreeing on what to ask or how. You didnt even post notification of this

When you said it revolves around two questions, this misrepresents some of the issues.

1. Cambial says that WikiLeaks writing about itself is not self-published. It obviously is

2. Cambial also insisted that WikiLeaks alone is more than sufficient, and removed CN tags about it to restore citations only to WikiLeaks.

3. Cambial did not ask about one of the central issues - whether or not WikiLeaks saying documents are from a third party involves claims about third parties.

4. There are lots of RSes that have the same information. Linking to WikiLeaks adds nothing and Cambial wont say why it is useful, but I asked many times

5 The instances are not WikiLeaks said it published X document and it was never suggested changing it to that. They use wikivoice Softlem (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned nothing about whether it’s self-published above - editors are smart enough to make their own judgement about what are the relevant factors and I’m not going to try to browbeat them with your opinion in an informal question. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

On 1) I'd say Wikileaks can be used in the Wikileaks article as a primary source about something discussed in a reliable secondary source.

On 2) I'd say Wikileaks can be used as a source about itself in things that are obvious from the first visible part of the home page or as a primary source when a secondary source discusses something. Everything said by Wikileaks should be attributed. We cannot point directly to hacked files an we should try to avoid linking any pages that have a link to hacked files.

On more eyes. The discussions are long with so many green quotes .... NadVolum (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Reliable Source

Hello friends, I am writing a very detailed and in-depth article over “People’s Publishing House (India) (PPH)”.

I will quote many sources, including famous authors, newspapers, journals and others. But for a two line part of my intro, I need to quote the interview of the Manager of PPH Connaught Place Showroom. I took this audio based interview in the early days of March 2024.

i know, self published work is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. But I need to quote the part of his interview where he is saying that they used to distribute books on Mobile Distribution Vans in many parts of India.

The interview is in Hindi, and I published it on YouTube. I can also upload the audio file on commons, which can later be embed on the Wikipedia page of PPH. Kindly note that Mr. Rishav Kumar, the Manager of PPH Connaught Place is working at the store since 1972, he is a legend and expert on this subject. I just don’t know how to use this audio interview for Wikipedia.

Please suggest whether to quote Manager of PPH from this interview or not? Pallav.journo (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

——- Have a look at the clip of that interview that I uploaded on Commons Rishav Kumar, PPH Manager, interview.

Please reply.

- Pallav.journo (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• For those who are curious, the draft article is here. Unsurprisingly, it has a generally promotional tone that is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. (The subject could be notable, though.) In my opinion, no, there is no way that an interview that you yourself conducted and posted on YouTube is going to meet WP:RS. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, how to change the tone? I am not associated with PPH anyway, apart from purchasing their books over many years.

  I am spending hell lot of resources and time, in researching this article, and instead of being sympathetic you have outrightly rejected my work. This person Rishav Kumar is telling me that “he used to sell books on a Bus, in 1970’s to 1990’s”. It is recorded on audio, he is an expert on this subject, as you can see there are other newspaper articles on the web about him and his Connaught Place showroom. Anyway I just need one line from this audio, that “PPH used to sell books on a Bus to this place and that Place”, that’s all.

  I think Wikipedia should be place where every one can expand human knowledge in a “constructive way”. There is no article on this great publisher on Wikipedia, it is a pity because the history of this publisher is associated with the history of modern India, and so many great names of Indian Literature were once associated with it.

  One small question, why your IP is showing up, and not name?

  -Pallav.journo (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  The answer to your last question is that I do not have a Wikipedia account — see Wikipedia:IP users. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have cleaned the draft up a bit. A lot of work is left to make it upto standards. Is your interview in a written form, if so then it can be added. Changeworld1984 (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot for helping me. The interview is recorded via an audio recorder. I have uploaded a clip of it on commons, with English Subtitles. The file on commons can be listened via this link File:Peoples Publishing House Rishav Kumar Interview clip about Book Distribution.webm

  -Pallav.journo (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  If you can upload transcript on any website even on your personal blog, it would be fine but it is the norm not to accept video and audio as a source. Changeworld1984 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Though I don't see much harm in using it for a small claim. Changeworld1984 (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, I will upload, full translated transcript of it on my blog (www.DatelineDelhi.com). I will then cite it on the article.

  Still so much work to do. You will see the final version will be so much detailed, will contain so much information. Thanks.

  -Pallav.journo (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree with Changeworld1984: putting the text of the interview on your blog does not transform it into a usable source. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait, no, it's probably not fine. @Pallav.journo, in most cases, interviews should be published by reliable, secondary sources. Anything that you put on your blog is considered self-published, and cannot involve claims about third parties (like Rishav Kumar). @Changeworld1984, with all due respect, you're a relatively new user and only started posting on RSN today, to ask questions about other sources. You should not be giving advice about source reliability. Woodroar (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, woodroar. Actually here Rishav Kumar who has been associated with the store for more than 50 years is telling that he distributed books on a van. So please suggest, should I omit that two lines from my article, or else can I leave them there without citation. Or is there a way to include this audio interview (which is highly reliable since it is recorded, even legal institutions rely upon recorded audio). I was reading, Wikipedia is of opinion, that Self Published Sources can be used if the “interviewed person is an expert on subject matter”. I am a professional Journalist myself, and in our trade “Recorded Bites” are good to go.

-Pallav.journo (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, you are the source here. Anything originating from you or your blog is self-published, and cannot be used for claims about third parties—only for claims about yourself. If Rishav Kumar writes about his experiences on his own social media or blog, then you could potentially cite that, with any limitations outlined at WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF. An interview about third parties is really only useable when published by a reliable, secondary/independent source, with an established editorial structure, a reputable publisher, etc. Woodroar (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I will remove Rishav Kumar’s interview, citation and that two lines portion from this article because no secondary source exists. -Pallav.journo (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Caucasian Races-- claim of obsolesence

I want to challenge the inclusion of 'obsolete' in the article. The Caucasian races page claims that the topic is either obsolete or a duplicate of the White Americans page. I raised the objection that Caucasian is a race label in Singapore, citing the Census Glossary https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/publications/cop2020/sr1/glossary.ashx and submitted a link to a pubmed (US medical research database) showing around 5,000 recent scientific articles using the word Caucasian https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%28Caucasian%29+NOT+%28white%29+NOT+%28European%29+NOT+%28American%29&filter=years.1974-2024&sort=pubdate Is this sufficient evidence to overcome a book that says it is an obsolete term? For example one article states: " Subgroup analysis suggested a remarkable role for this SNP as a risk factor in the Caucasian ethnicity and the chronic subtype. Conclusion: TNFα 308G/A polymorphism can be an ITP susceptibility factor in the Caucasian population and the chronic subtype." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38368694/ This references a conversation here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Caucasian_race#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_22_March_2024 Mrdthree (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mrdthree. This isn't a matter for RSN. I have left you a message at the article's talk page.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Surrogate services of the U.S. Agency for Global Media

This is an RfC on the surrogate services of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), not on its external service (Voice of America). The surrogate services are: Office of Cuba Broadcasting/Radio y Television Marti, etc.; Middle East Broadcasting Networks/alhurra/El Saha, etc.; RFE/RL; Radio Free Asia; and any other surrogate outlets under USAGM control the identify of which has not been publicly revealed.
As each of these are a DBA brand of a single organization with a single controlling mind (USAGM), this RfC proposes to address them collectively.

Extended content

As a refresher or orientation: An external service reports to Nation A (foreign audience) about Nation B (sponsor nation); examples include the BBC World Service, Deutsche Welle, Radio Prague, NHK World, Voice of America, etc. In the Cowan & Asenault typology, it is a public diplomacy activity and exists to provide easy access to reliable news as a means of establishing the goodwill of the sponsor. A surrogate service reports to Nation A (foreign audience) about Nation A (foreign audience); examples include RT, Press TV, teleSUR, Radio y Television Marti, Radio Free Asia, etc.) According to the below sources, it occupies an amorphous space between public diplomacy and information warfare and is generally targeted at states hostile to the sponsor. See: Cowan, Geoffrey (March 1, 2008). "Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy". The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 616 (1). "The Changing Scope of U.S. International Broadcasts". cfr.org. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved March 19, 2024. "External Services and Organizations". Global Broadcasting Systems. Routledge. 1996. ISBN 9781032624600. Swainn, Michael (March 1978). "The BBC's External Services Under Threat?". Journal of the Royal Society of Arts. 126 (5260). etc.

Question A: For coverage 2017 and later, are the surrogate services of the U.S. Agency for Global Media:

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

Question B: For coverage before 2017, are the surrogate services of the U.S. Agency for Global Media:

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

Chetsford (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• A4 / B3 for reasons I describe in the discussion section. I further suggest that pre-2017 online articles be considered post-2017 for application of this RfC unless an archive exists from an independent source (e.g. Wayback Machine). I don't think the integrity of outlet-maintained archives can be presumed. (Pinging Newslinger as he suggested the informal discussion that preceded this be reformatted as an RfC.) Chetsford (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• A1/B1 while their reporting has some bias, they are cited by others and usable for facts. While some lack of independence can be concerning, even state-funded media from authoritarian states is not per se less than GREL. While they are not strictly independent from the people directly in charge, they are definitely independent from the US as a whole, and undoubtedly independent from their geopolitical interest, at least to the degree that Al Jazeera is (an RS). They are cited by others, and while the change in structure is (morally) negative, it ought to have no impact on general reliability. In particular, RFA is undoubtedly reliable per prior discussions. FortunateSons (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• A1/B1 though lumping so many outlets together makes this RfC of questionable validity. Each outlet ought to be evaluated separately as was already done with WP:RADIOFREEASIA. Reporters/editors are distinct for each outlet as there's a quite a bit of linguistic and regional nuance from one outlet to another (e.g., Uyghur-language reporting at RFA versus Arabic-language reporting at Alhurra). - Amigao (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
• A2/B2. I don't see firm evidence that the organisational change has affected the editorial standards. The sources provided by u:Chetsford show that there were issues before 2017 as well, including the control of RFERL by the CIA. Also, no evidence of their unreliability has been provided. The history of government control, the current ownership structure and the common sense indicate that these sources should be used carefully for contentious topics, especially for establishing due weight, hence vote for Option 2. Alaexis_¿question? 21:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• OP's rationale:

1.The organizational architecture of the surrogate services post-2017 makes them functionally non-WP:INDEPENDENT of the United States government. And the subjects of interest to the U.S. Government are panoptic, leaving no possible carveout of independent reporting.

• On December 23, 2016, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 was passed which dissolved the semi-independent Broadcasting Board of Governors and placed these media outlets under a single official appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the president of the day. All surrogate services are 100 percent funded by the U.S. Government and their staff are U.S. Government employees on the GS payscale, recruited from usajobs.gov and in some cases their reporters have to undergo pre-employment SF-86 security screenings (e.g. [63]) by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency.
• In addition, these outlets operate under an exclusive congressional statute which grants them absolute immunity from all civil liability. [64] As such, they are the only media outlets in the U.S. which face no legal risk for errors in their reporting or pecuniary incentive to avoid mistakes.

2. Each of these outlets has been widely criticized by highly reliable sources -- including their own staff -- for engaging in shoddy journalism, succumbing to political pressures, or concealing the hierarchy of their editorial control. There are too many to mention, so I'll just provide a small sample covering a couple brands over a 50 year period to show this is an endemic issue.

• Until 1971, RFE/RL reporting and editorial policy was secretly controlled by the CIA [65]. This was not voluntarily revealed by it and only came to light after an investigative expose.
• James Brown, director of RFE/RL from 1978 to 1985, chronicles extensively the political pressure he frequently came under to adopt an "ultra aggressive" editorial tone in his 2014 book Radio Free Europe: An insider’s view.
• A 2009 report by the U.S. Government's own GAO found that, from 2004-2007, Radio y Television Marti had a "perpetually poor standard of journalism", editorialized "the presentation of individual views as news", incorporated "offensive and incendiary language" in its reporting, and reported on "unsubstantiated" rumors. [66]
• A 2008 report by the University of Southern California found that Alhurra "relied on unsubstantiated information too often ... [and] allowed the on-air expression of personal judgments too frequently". [67]
• In his 2013 book Propaganda, Power and Persuasion: From World War I to Wikileaks, David Welch (Director of the Study of Propaganda at the University of Kent) wrote exhaustively about how Radio Free Asia is "very selective" in the news it reports and about the "inherent bias in RFA's programming" and that it frames its reporting on China with the intent of emphasizing the "disharmony" in the Harmonious Society.
• In 2018, Mother Jones chronicled the aggressive and questionable tone of Radio y Television Marti's reporting, including its news reports that deounced George Soros is a "multimillionaire Jew" and the "architect of the financial collapse of 2008". [68]
• In 2019, the USAGM commissioned a new report on Radio y Television Marti. That report - authored by professors at USC and journalists from Telemundo - concluded Radio y Television Marti was "riddled with bad journalism" and "ineffective propaganda". [69]
• As recently as 2021, USAGM's own staff representing all the brands have stated that management has taken "actions that did not align with USAGM’s firewall principles". [70]

Chetsford (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

A cursory reading of the 2021 report is mostly referring to actions in the “gray zone”, and that they are being addressed. That sounds like standard journalistic issues and not impactful to reliability. FortunateSons (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

In addition, it sounds like at least some of those primarily refer to bias and not unreliability. FortunateSons (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"In addition, it sounds like at least some of those primarily refer to bias and not unreliability." Hmmm ... I think you may need to do more than a cursory reading, then. Chetsford (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• For the record, all publications under this umbrella that have been previously discussed at RSN have been found to be generally reliable in discussions over the last several years, see WP:RSP for details. Given that many of the complaints are about Radio y Television Marti specifically, maybe it would have been better to have separate RfCs for each outlet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed a comment by Chetsford that referred to a prior version of this comment where I did not add "previously discussed at RSN" that is now redundant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Insofar as I can tell, almost none of the brands under this umbrella have been previously discussed at RSN, including Alhurra, Radio Sawa, Radio y Television Marti, etc. Moreover, the existence of prior discussions does not preclude revisiting consensus. From my review of the minority of instances of prior discussion, the community was presented with limited and inferior information, relied on its original research into their reliability to the complete preclusion of the panoply of independent evaluation that has occurred, and did not consider post-2017 changes to the organizational architecture of the USAGM.
  I also disagree it would be better to have independent RfCs about each outlet as this is a single outlet (USAGM) that simply operates under different branding schemes, not unlike CNN, CNN International, CNN en Español, etc. They're all in the same facilities, they have a common HR and legal team, their staff seamlessly float between brands, they report to the same boss, they have the same funding source, etc. It would be illogical, incoherent, and nonsensical for one to be RS and another to be non-RS. Chetsford (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• User:Amigao - "lumping so many outlets together" -- Just to clarify, I don't think anyone would reasonably view these as different outlets. This is a single outlet (the U.S. Agency for Global Media). It operates several different brands. None of these brands have the technical ability to independently broadcast programming, they are collectively served by USAGM's Office of Technology Services; RyTM and RFA signals both go out over the same physical transmitters. None of these brands hire their own "reporters," USAGM HR selects and hires them and each of them gets a paycheck that says "United States Treasury" on the top. None of these brands do pre-hire vetting of their own "reporters"; they are all vetted by U.S. military security services using the SF86 form [71] to determine their "loyalty to the United States." None of these brands have a different terminal boss, they all report to a political appointee of the president who can hire and fire employees. So, again, I think the only reasonable reading is USAGM is the outlet. These are merely Doing Business As names under which it operates. Chetsford (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  They are not exactly "Doing Business As" names. To be more precise, they are distinct 501(c)(3) organizations that are funded and supervised by USAGM. Their technical and financial infrastructure is provided by USAGM. That is public, well-documented, and does not necessarily create a contradiction with WP:INDEPENDENT, which centers on editorial independence. So far, I'm not seeing anything concrete here that would demonstrate an overall lack of editorial independence. - Amigao (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• User:FortunateSons - "it ought to have no impact on reliability" -- While it ought not to, WP:RS affirm with absolute certainty it does. Why do you believe Telemundo is not reliable to make the determination that RyTM is "riddled with bad journalism" and "propaganda" [72]. Why do you believe USC's Annenberg School of Communications is not reliable to make the determination Alhurra relies "on unsubstantiated information too often ... [and] allowed the on-air expression of personal judgments too frequently" [73]. I've cited a dozen RS who have said these brands are completely unreliable based on in-depth analysis they've undertaken (i.e. not a quick Google News search to see if they're cited elsewhere). Anyway, my question is - when you dismiss RS like that with the unsourced conclusory statement "it ought to have no impact on reliability" you are making an affirmation of your perception of the status quo or an expression of hope? Chetsford (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  while the change in structure is (morally) negative, it ought to have no impact on general reliability. specifically refers to the change in structure, not to the discussion as a whole. FortunateSons (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Right. But when you say "ought to" were you expressing your hope/desire/wish it has no impact on reliability? Or were you indicating you have sources that negate the extensive documentation by RS that it's unreliable? Also, if you believe these are reliable, do I read that to understand you'd be okay with someone sourcing Radio y Television Marti to insert into our encyclopedia that George Soros is a "multimillionaire Jew" responsible for the 2008 financial crisis (as it reported [74])?Chetsford (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ought in this sense refers to “not substantiated by policy”

Regarding the coverage, it was retracted and the employee put on administrative leave. While I would prefer us removing any network that violates a modern definition of antisemitism from the RS list, that is simply not covered by policy, and I am not permitted to insert my personal view on what makes or breaks an RS. FortunateSons (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"I am not permitted to insert my personal view on what makes or breaks an RS" But isn't that what you're doing? Presented with a dozen different sources - many of which are in-depth, academic content analyses - affirming USAGM is unreliable, you have !voted based on merely conclusory statements without presenting any counter-evidence from any RS affirming their reliability? Chetsford (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I have voted in my reading of the sources (those whose language I understand) and my interpretation of policy. I am not allowed to make new policy just because I don’t like the conduct of a source. FortunateSons (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"I am not allowed to make new policy" Aren't you doing that, though? Our WP:IIS unambiguously precludes using a source that has a vested interest in a given topic and USAGM is simply an operating unit of the USG, funded by it and with less independence than even the Securities and Exchange Commission (which at least has a separating board). Instead of indicating even a tempered view of "additional considerations apply" you've given it the maximalist "generally reliable" with no caveat or limitation even for reporting on the USG itself. While I could disagree - but at least understand your position - if you presented counter-information or sources that contextualized what was presented, you haven't done that. It appears you're creating a policy carveout for the USAGM? Chetsford (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I am evenly applying the same policy that lead to the results at Wikipedia:RADIOFREEASIA, which means that bias is an issue (as written in my vote), but there is no general lack of reliability to justify depreciation. Government funding (no matter the method of oversight) has not yet been considered a justification for depreciation in democratic countries to the best of my knowledge. Particularly RFA is clearly broadly cited, and as you have argued that they belong together, so you should then accept the RFA RfC to apply to all. While issues of bias (and style) are apparent, a broad lack of reliability is not. Therefore, I maintain my vote. FortunateSons (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is Wikipedia:USEBYOTHERS for RFE too: Business Insider, JPost, Forbes, The Hill, Time, France24, BBC (from 2013), BBC and many more FortunateSons (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Further to usage by other sources, WP:GREL sources like The Atlantic and The Economist not only use RFA's reporting but have also praised it. Examples: 1, 2, 3. Amigao (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Citation 73 primarily discusses issues of (actual and perceived) bias, and (page 27) the bar is less than 15 percent of stories having less than 2 (not necessarily 0, according to the endnote) sources, something negative but not necessarily catastrophic.

For linguistic reasons, I am unable to read 72. FortunateSons (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I most wholeheartedly disagree with the veracity of your summary. Chetsford (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor. FortunateSons (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Bamboo Works

Is Bamboo Works trustworthy? Can it be cited? Changeworld1984 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Not extensively used but for future reference. The website mostly reports on china and chinese businesses. Changeworld1984 (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Which specific source? What claims? Reliability depends entirely on context.

That being said, their partner with us page mentions "opportunities for sponsored content, article-writing services and a wide range of promotions", which suggests that they are not a reliable, independent source. Woodroar (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yicai Global

I couldn't find any discussions on this news organisation. It is cited in 151 times.

Exerpt from Shanghai Media Group

In October 2020, the United States Department of State designated Yicai Global as a foreign mission of the Chinese government.

Can this website be trusted? In non geopolitical cases? Changeworld1984 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Which specific source? What claims? Reliability depends entirely on context.

Their about page lists no editors and has no editorial policy. It also says "Yicai Global captures daily Chinese A-shares stock and futures market dynamics by Writing Master, a self-designed AI writing system." Woodroar (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Since it is state run media, how much can information be trusted? Changeworld1984 (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, which specific source? What claims? Reliability depends entirely on context. Woodroar (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

JSTOR journal articles

Hello,

I just want to check if all secondary source content held on JSTOR is deemed to be reliable and if there are any exceptions to this. I don't have a particular context for this query although my particular area of interest is in history if that helps narrow it down. Rather I have seen editors (including senior ones) in the past remove journal articles published on JSTOR as 'unreliable".

I just wanted to know what the communities consensus on this is? JSTOR for their part maintains that the majority of articles they hold would be peer-reviewed and those that aren't would still be held to a scholarly standard: https://support.jstor.org/hc/en-us/articles/115011338628-Searching-are-JSTOR-Articles-Peer-Reviewed

I do use JSTOR articles a lot when referencing, especially journal articles published since the 1950's. What is the community consensus on this? Ixudi (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Your question isn't answerable. JSTOR has thousands of journals and millions of articles; JSTOR is more akin to a library than anything else. Academic sources tend to be good sources, but the question of whether a source is usable for an article is context-specific. Specific examples of a source published on JSTOR that was removed for unreliability would be helpful. Mackensen (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

One example of a removal would be demonstrated by this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zamindars_of_Bihar&diff=prev&oldid=1180133706

This is the journal article that was removed: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44141239 To me, the source seemed fine. It is published by the Indian History Congress which again seems like a legitimate body of historians, This is just a single example that comes to mind. There were a few others I came across done by various editors so I am not singling anyone out. Ixudi (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Mackensen. Things you find in JSTOR tend to be RS, just like things you find on YouTube tend not to be. But in both cases, that's painting with a broad brush and you really need to examine the individual source to make a determination. RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Many journals on JSTOR go back well over a century, & will not be RS for that alone. In some subject areas, nothing much from from the 1950s should be used now. In others it may be ok. Eg, in archaeology, excavation reports are normally just done once, & that's it. Johnbod (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Radioworld?

Any thoughts on radioworld as a RS? We've got the better part of 100 articles that cite it now, but my immediate reason for caring is that I cite it twice in Arthur O. Austin, which I'm getting in shape for WP:FAC. On the one hand, it feels a bit like a blog. On the other hand, it does have what appears to be a real editorial staff and the Editor in Chief does appear to be an subject matter expert. I'm thinking they're OK to use for non-controversial technical information in the area of broadcast radio, but I'd like to hear what other folks think. RoySmith (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of WION

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