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.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
List of archives

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

Additional notes:

Shortcuts

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

Start a new discussion

RfC: Venezuelanalysis

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus that Venezuelanalysis is generally unreliable. Concerns over lack of editorial oversight, false information, and overt bias have widespread support, and the assertion made in one response that there was no evidence of fabricated claims was rebutted. There was also an argument for usability in some circumstances that focused on bias, but it didn't adequately address the other concerns, and other points in the statement were countered. That leaves us where we were before this RFC started. In the future, please do not open RFCs at RSN unless there is specific content at issue, or the source is broadly used. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reliability of Venezuelanalysis?

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

Previous RfC from March 2019 can be viewed here. WMrapids (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2: After reviewing Bolivarian propaganda article, which was riddled with original research and WP:BLP violations, I encountered Venezuelanalysis. At first glance, it is clearly sympathetic to Bolivarianism and, yes, it appears that its creation was assisted by the Venezuelan government. However, it now says that it is funded by individual readers and not from any governments (if we can take their word for it). Many of the !votes in the previous RfC were focused on bias and not on substance. While there is one argument arguing over a recognition map (which was highly contested at the time), other users simply made the charge of "fake news" without evidence.

As Rosguill said in the previous RfC, there does not appear to be blatant disinformation in the articles and the site does openly criticized the government (reporting protests against police who arrested LGBTQI+ individuals, labor protests against the government[1][2][3], a "crackdown" on indigenous protests and criticized policies by the government, including the ineffectiveness of anti-illegal mining policy). So while a clear bias exists, there appears to be some criticism of the Venezuelan government as well. Knowing that consensus can change and context matters, Venezuelanalysis should be used with additional considerations and properly attributed.--WMrapids (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there appears to be editorial oversight and journalists, contrary to the argument that there are only "activists" working for VA.

Michael Fox, an author, journalist and the former editor of NACLA Report on the Americas, serves on the board of Venezuelanalysis.
Lucas Koerner, editor and writer of Venezuelanalysis (which Harvard University describes as an "independent news outlet") is a doctoral student at Harvard.
The Nation (WP:GREL) describes VA writer José Luis Granados Ceja as "a journalist and political analyst based in Mexico City".
Jeanette Charles is a grad student at UCLA, where she earned her Master in History degree, and has had an article published by The_Wire_(India) (WP:GREL)
Current editor Cira Pascual Marquina is a professor of political science at at the Bolivarian University of Venezuela.
Political analyst Ricardo Vaz of VA was interviewed in his capacity as VA staff last year regarding Venezuelan topics by The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Also, Venezuelanalysis has been cited in articles by multiple peer-reviewed scholarly journals for nearly two decades, including:

PRISM of the National Defense University [4]
Journal of Democracy[5]
The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs[6]
Latin American Politics and Society[7]
Perspectives on Politics[8]
Qualitative Sociology[9]
International and Comparative Law Quarterly[10]
Law and Business Review of the Americas[11][12][13][14]
Ethics and Information Technology[15]
Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society[16]
Dialectical Anthropology[17]
Social Justice[18]
Centro[19]

So we have editors and journalists that have reputable academic backgrounds that are recognized by generally reliable sources and we have widespread usage of Venezuelanalysis being cited in scholarly journals. Should make the website suitable for "additional considerations" at a minimum.--WMrapids (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "blatant disinformation" would be grounds for option 4 not option 3, so I don't think this is a valid argument against the current consensus.

However, the examples of recent articles more critical of the government are interesting; it may be that there is a shift at the website and it might make sense to review the reliability of recent news articles in the future. However, I checked other recent articles by the same journalists and saw examples of problematic reporting. (For example compare this (essentially a dressed up government PR statement) to this fact based report of the same incident. Or this distorting report to this reliable report.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bobfrombrockley yes, there has been a shift in chavismo strategy for several reasons. One is the International Criminal Court's looking into the evidence for crimes against humanity; shifting blame for those crimes to lowly peons, and critical reporting of those lowly peons, will help the higher ups escape sanction. Another is a move towards capitalism: see for example this Bloomberg report on the propaganda trend. But more relevant is Biden relaxing sanctions in the hopes of free elections next year. By appearing to allow free elections, while barring the leading candidate from running, Maduro gives the impression of free elections, which provides a win–win for chavismo. The examples of reporting critical of the Maduro administration merely reinforces that Venezuelanalysis is on the same propaganda page and well tuned in to the importance of reporting on certain issues with respect to advancing their overall aim, which is the appearance of free and fair elections and no sanctions for crimes against humanity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing some digging Bobfrombrockley, you show that there is a clear difference in the quality of reporting between VA and Al Jazeera. I agree with what you are saying overall (I think), but there should be additional considerations for Venezuelanalysis instead of outright banning it from Wikipedi since it may be useful in some circumstances. As you can see from my comments below, once a source is labeled "unreliable", even if there is a mention of it being attributed, it is essentially given a death sentence by users. So in a similar manner to the (unclear) decision with La Patilla, I don't think Venezuelanalysis should be considered generally reliable at all, that it should be used in contentious articles/claims or for statements of fact, but I do think that it can be used as a secondary source for some Venezuelan government statements (especially since most Venezuelan government sources are essentially deprecated) and that if it is used, that it is properly attributed. Placing in the RSP list on how it could be used in specific circumstances while explicitly outlining how it should be excluded would be beneficial as it would prevent further disputes and misuse while also preventing future, long-winded discussions on what should be permitted. WMrapids (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WMrapids: Per WP:BLUDGEON and previous related concerns, could you considering collapsing your last additions? I have tried to do the same in the last RfCs when I include a long list of links, and by experience I think we can both agree it would be for the best. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not collapse an addition to my original decision and please don’t do it for me while also labeling it as bludgeoning. You’re casting aspersions. WMrapids (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bad RFC This doesn't appear to be a real issue that merits a new RFC. There are only nine articles in which this site is even mentioned, and it looks like just three in which it is cited as a source for anything at all. [20] Where is it being cited as a source that is controversial and merits a RFC? Banks Irk (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Banks Irk: It was previously used at least 252 times and possibly more beforehand, though it has been methodically removed since the last RfC (as recently as July 2023, a user has continued to remove the source). There are some Venezuelan articles where their information may be valuable with proper attribution. WMrapids (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then, withdraw the RFC and ask specific questions about articles where you want to use the source. Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article? Banks Irk (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's legitimate to have an RfC to see if consensus has changed in order that a source might find broader usage. TarnishedPath^talk 02:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's true but WP:RFCBEFORE still applies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time that WMrapids tries to rush into a RfC. WMrapids has created several RfCs in the past two months. Many of those have been retracted or criticized for being rushed.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How else do you achieve such a consensus when a previous RfC made a decision? Users have been removing many uses of Venezuelanalysis following a previous RfC that didn't have many thorough arguments. Some of these were systematically removed while citing the project essay WP:VENRS as policy.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27] In fact, there were over 500 edits that simply blanked sources, edits suggesting that any narrative from the Maduro/Venezuelan government should not be present on Wikipedia. We can simply attribute when needed instead of removing information in its entirety, however, you can see that this is impossible, especially with this edit here where attribution is crystal clear (despite MOS:CLAIM wording), though the Venezuelanalysis source and information was removed anyway. Even more egregious are these edits; the user removes the Venezuelanalysis source for an attributed statement and then in a subsequent edit, the user removes the attributed statement from the article entirely, saying it was "unsourced" (even though they removed the source). This behavior has made any usage or mention of Venezuelanalysis a non-starter, which is why an RfC to determine consensus is necessary. WMrapids (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked through the edits by NoonIcarus flagged here. I note that they are quite spread out in time, and don't appear to have been done in a systematic way as implied. I find the majority of them to be completely legitimate - e.g. removing when a better source is present - but did see a couple where removal was hasty and it would have been better to add an "unreliable inline" or "better source" tag to enable editors to fix it, rather than leave unsourced material with a "cn" tag. However, this doesn't appear to have been widespread, and could easily be dealt with following the consensus established at the last RfC by simply reinstating with a tag or raising on talk; it does not justify a new RfC. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Hedikupa Parepvigi said in a discussion below, per the stale discussions section of WP:RSP, Venezuelanalysis "has not been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard for four calendar years, and the consensus may have changed since the most recent discussion", so one is correct to ask if consensus did change. WMrapids (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted below, that quote is taken out of context. It is not an instruction that it is OK to start a new RFC, it is simply a legend for the symbol used on RSP for 4+ year old consensus discussions. Banks Irk (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela has been notified.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RFC/Option 4 RfCs should be for determining the reliability of a source being widely used in Wikipedia or for discussing the reliability for its use in a specific instance. This request for comment is neither of those.

However, if I have to leave some comments: if time has taught us anything about Venezuelanalysis, is that it definitely should not be used. The fact that Venezuelanalysis has been funded by the Venezuelan government should not be in question, because Gregory Wilpert himself (co-founder of VA) admitted in an interview with ZMag receiving money from the Venezuelan Ministry of Culture. It does not have editorial independence, its editorial staff is made up of members from deprecated outlets, and its bias affects its reliability. A report from the Venezuelan fact-checking coalition C-Informa offers more insight ("Portals of lies: the international swarm of "independent media" at the service of Chavista narratives". Please read the full article if you have a chance, since it as informative as it is long):

In the case of media such as Venezuelanalysis, Orinoco Tribune and even the now censored Aporrea, a team full of current and former Venezuelan diplomats in the United States, former ministers and both former and active editors of Telesur, RT and Venezuelan state media operates.
Here the network shows the least visible and at the same time most powerful node: Venezuelanalysis is the one that has the highest levels of coordination and influence with governmental bodies, thanks to the fact that it has in its team former Chavez ministers, former officials of the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry, former editors of Telesur English and even those accused of corruption in the United States.
Its staff includes: Andreína Chávez Alava (former editor-in-chief of Telesur Ecuador), Cira Pascual Marquina (professor at Universidad Bolivariana), Rachael Boothroyd (Telesur correspondent and collaborator of Alborada) and Jessica Dos Santos (Actualidad RT and Épale Ccs, with three journalism awards given by the Chávez and Maduro governments) (...) And among its collaborators, the Venezuelan-American Eva Golinger, author of Chávez Code, a book with conspiracy theories on the assassination of Hugo Chávez with nanotechnological weapons, whose ideas are found in a great part of the network studied, thanks to the support especially given by ActualidadRT, Telesur and Sputnik.
The Venezuelanalysis team also includes former officials such as Reinaldo Iturriza López (former Minister of Culture and former Minister of Communes of Maduro between April 2013 and January 2016 and former director of the official channel Ávila TV) and Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein, former director of International Relations of the Presidency of Venezuela, former Venezuelan ambassador to Nicaragua, former general director of the International Relations Office of the Ministry of Culture, columnist in Misión Verdad and usual commentator as international analyst in Sputnik Mundo, which also published an interview recounting his Sandinista guerrilla experience in Nicaragua.

Not only does it have staff from Venezuelan government members, but also from outlets deprecated in the English Wikipedia such as Russia Today, Telesur, Sputnik and others. This includes Misión Verdad as well, whose hoaxes include comparing the Venezuelan Green Cross [es] to Syria's White Helmets, claiming that have also they staged false flags incidents during the 2017 protests ([28]).

Let's not forget the examples provided in the previous RfC, such as the misleading map about the presidential crisis. Equally important, though, are other examples of false content that has not been retracted, such as the causes of death of Juan Pablo Pernalete (claiming he was killed captive bolt pistol by the opposition instead of a tear gas canister by security forces [29]) and Fernando Albán (saying that he committed suicide, instead of being killed[30]). Both were the versions provided that the Venezuelan government, and that themselves admitted five years later that they were false.

As its name suggests, VA is a website dedicated to analysis, not news. With its lack of neutrality, it means that it is no better than a blog and that it does not belong to Wikipedia. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The three articles you linked don't report any falsehoods. The map is not even "misleading" as it pertains to the latest government recognized by each country. The article that discusses Pernalete discusses in great details the theories the two versions of his death and doesn't take a position either way, and the article on alban merely reports what the authorities are saying, with attribution of these claims to the Venezuelan Attorney General. Mottezen (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funding from GOV: This was 2007 and the context was that this occurred during its founding.
Cazadores article: Many of the statements here are guilt by association arguments (i.e. VA staff previously were part of the government/media org). Ok, but why did they leave such organizations and instead join VA? Were they upset with something? Did they not support the direction though still supported certain ideals. This has nothing to do with reliability. You also attempt this guilt by association by making the false equivalence between Misión Verdad and Venezuelanalysis (Venezuelanalysis hasn't made any statements about the "Green Cross")
"Misleading map": Some may argue that "silence is complicity", meaning that those who didn't recognize Guaidó (including neutral nations) were instead recognizing Maduro. Others (including Wikipedia) took a more nuanced approach regarding recognition (Guaidó, National Assembly, neutrality, Maduro or no statement). So definitions on recognition (as it was during the entire presidential crisis) may be up to interpretation.
Retractions: In their thousands of articles, maybe they overlooked retracting articles on incidents that occurred five years prior to when information was clarified?

As Mottezen said, you have not provided any falsehoods that can be attributed to Venezuelanalysis. WMrapids (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3: I don’t see what is changed since the last RFC. It is reliable for reporting the statements of the Venezuelan government and its close allies, so should not be deprecated. Most of its content is opinion or commentary, which is neither reliable, nor noteworthy. Its news content is largely secondhand, often from unreliable sources; when the original source is reliable, we should use that instead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [typo corrected 16 Oct][reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: What has changed since the last RfC is that virtually all usage of Venezuelanalysis has been removed (see my edit above). Despite its entry saying that "its claims should be attributed", the attributed claims have been removed as well. If we determine this is "additional conditions" material, we can also note that opinion and commentary should be attributed. It is strange that with the La Patilla RfC you supported "additional considerations" in similar circumstances. Do you see any unreliable information from Venezuelanalysis? Again, all of this is not to illustrate a point, but you made a similar argument in a previous RfC though you have a different decision with this particular case. WMrapids (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WMrapids. Have you got examples of Venezuelanalysis being removed incorrectly? As a result of the last RfC, I looked at some of its usages and found that in some cases it was being used appropriately but in others it wasn't and removed it. For example, it was second hand reporting from either more reliable sources (in which case I replaced with original) or from unreliable sources (in which case I removed and/or tagged). In other cases, opinion pieces were being used as facts, so I removed or added better source tagging. Perhaps other editors were more slapdash in removing a generally unreliable source for material where it might have been appropriate, in which case it would be fine to review those instances or bring them here for discussion, but it doesn't change the basic finding of general unreliability. Re the La Patilla comparison, I don't think they're comparable. La Patilla is staffed by journalists. It reports stuff. It reports stuff that we wouldn't know if we only used government press releases. Whereas Venezuelanalysis is staffed by activists and its original content is not based on actual reporting. Where elements of La Patilla's output are comparable to Venezuelanalysis' (the aggregation), I argued that this should be considered unreliable. Hope this answers your questions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobfrombrockley: I appreciate the thorough response. While you say that they are staffed by "activists", the same could be said by La Patilla due to their extreme bias as well. However, bias does not affect reliability and we have discussed this before. I'm not saying that Venezuelanalysis is generally reliable at all either, just that they may be applicable in certain situations with proper attribution. That is why I chose "additional considerations" since it seems like if it were determined to be anything less, users would simply remove any trace from the project entirely (especially since the WP:RSP entry already suggests use with attribution and it is still being removed). What do you think about this? WMrapids (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "activists" I don't mean "biased"; I mean lacking in any kind of journalistic training or expertise, lacking in normal news-based editorial procedures. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If your position regarding reliability is the same as La Patilla, per the previous RfC, then you should agree that the outlet must be considered unreliable or be deprecated. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2: I'm glad this RFC was made. I think the previous RFC missed the mark.

Sure, it has received money from the Venezuelan government in the past. Is that an argument for deprecation? There are an awful lot of outlets cited on Wikipedia that have received money from western governments. Should they be deprecated? Of course not.

Sure, they are consistently and predictably biased in certain ways. So is every single "reliable source", without exception. CNN is biased in favor of its advertisers, and against those who criticize its advertisers. The WSJ is biased in favor of wealthy people and against things that disproportionately benefit the working class. Bellingcat is biased in the sense that it receives funding from western governments, and then conducts investigations into those governments' adversaries, while never investigating their benefactors. And all three of these outlets are biased in favor of the USA and against the USA's "adversaries". Should those three outlets be deprecated? Of course not.

Sure, they've released a handful of reports that contained inaccuracies. Find me an outlet that hasn't published misleading information. I'm old enough to remember the Iraq-WMD hoax, which was perpetuated by essentially every mainstream American outlet, due to a combination of pro-US government bias and uncritical credulity. The pro-government disinformation spread, knowingly or unwittingly, by US-based outlets, led to the Iraq invasion, which in turn led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. The lesson there isn't that the NYT & others are unreliable. The lesson is that they are biased, and will err on the side of their biases when the fog of propaganda gets too thick to parse.

Sure, they employ some people who've worked for the Venezuelan government. Has anyone taken a look at the career backgrounds of many contributors to US-based "reliable sources"? NBC, CBS, CNN, and others have so many FBI, CIA, and DOD employees on their payroll that I can't keep track of them all. Does that mean we should deprecate those outlets? Of course not.

Additional considerations apply, and editors should take care to understand the context and potential bias of this source before using it. The same should be said for literally every other source. Is it the best source out there on Venezuelan issues? No, but when Wikipedia already suffers from rampant systemic bias, and many Latin American political issues are primarily presented on Wikipedia from the perspective of the affluent Anglo-American press, allowing the use of this source is a no brainer. Of course Venezuelanalysis should not be deprecated. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source wasn't deprecated in the previous RFC - that would have been #4. The consensus conclusion was #3. Banks Irk (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for correcting me. Indeed, the previous conclusion was #3, not #4. I think all of my arguments are substantively the same - and as a previous editor noted, there has been a multi-year move to remove Venezuelanalysis, so it is, in practice, treated as a deprecated source. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim about Bellingcat here is easily demonstrably incorrect, as well as whataboutery. The "bias is not unreliability" mantra is a strawman argument as the issue with VA is not bias but distortion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to respond to this before and other editors already have, but I think it's important that I leave my comment. Unfortunately, this is a false equivalency between Western media as a whole an Venezuelanalysis, something that is actually common when discussing these issues.

Taking as an example the US invasion of Iraq (which has happened over 20 years ago now and sources have corrected their stances), and comparing to an outlet affiliated with the Venezuelan government simply does not hold water. A specific historical event is not the same as a PR campaign that has continued over the years. If you feel that the reliability of any of those sources should be questioned, you're free start a new RfC.

Possibly the best example is the consistent cheerleading of the Bolivarian missions, including but not limited to Robinson ([31][32][33]), Vivienda ([34][35]) and Barrio Adentro ([36][37][38]). None of their articles make any mention of their negative aspects, such as corruption, unsustainability and lack of progress. After all the years when they were published, they have not done it and won't either simply because their editorial line is uncritical. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Bad RFC; WP:RFCBEFORE~~ Andre🚐 19:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC) I'm coming back here to say that I'll go along with Option 4 or 3 for this source after reading SandyGeorgia's take on it. I believe we have enough good sources that we can afford to be selective when it comes to dicey sources. It doesn't take much for me to see the problem with this source. Given the RFC felt premature but it's proceeding, here is where I am landing. Andre🚐 23:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lesson there isn't that the NYT & others are unreliable. The lesson is that they are biased, No, the lesson is that they make errors and are susceptible to errors (or intentional lies/propaganda) Andre🚐 19:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is also true. They make errors, and are susceptible to unintentionally amplifying lies and propaganda. However, the NYT has never, to my knowledge, used their front page to accidentally push Ugandan state propaganda, or Bolivian state propaganda, or Thai state propaganda. When the NYT (and others, they're a placeholder) publishes propaganda, it just so happens to be propaganda that is supportive of the US and its allies, and critical of the US government's adversaries. That is a demonstration of latent bias.

Even though these outlets got stories like Iraq/WMD catastrophically wrong, with devastating real-world consequences, they are still reliable sources generally speaking. I read the NYT all the time. My only point in bringing this up is that outlets like Venezuelanalysis, which exist outside the mainstream, affluent Anglo-American bubble, are held to an absurdly high standard in comparison to the standards we typically apply to outlets like the NYT, CNN, WSJ, NBC, BBC, PBS, and so on. The criticisms, that Venezuelanalysis has a generally (but not consistently) pro-government bent, has previously received funding from the government, and has made errors, are all criticisms that can be equally applied to outlets held in high esteem by Wikipedians. I'd submit that this is, in part, due to systemic bias. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable, good faith discussion, but I will use Occam's razor to say that it's much simpler. NYT is obviously reliable, as you say, even though they have occasional errors or latent biases (for the sake of the argument I will grant without getting into whether NYT has ever inadvertently pushed Ugandan propaganda). When it comes to outlets like Venezualanalysis - I don't know if they are reliable or not. But there's a reason why we have high standards for reliability when it comes to state-affiliated media. The bottom line is that we have to determine whether Venezualanalysis has a high standard for editorial oversight, fact-checking, a la WP:NEWSORG. It is not presumed to. While there might be a bit of an equivalency you might seek to make on the question of other outlets are reliable, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't the discussion. The question is whether Venezuelanalysis is reliable on its own merits. Andre🚐 22:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I do think the broader point I've made above is relevant, but it's good to refocus the conversation on Venezuelanalysis. Here's my final thoughts on this unless a new avenue of dialogue opens up:

Per WMRapids' comment, citations of Venezuelanalysis have been "methodically removed", from 252 to 9. So it's been, practically speaking, deprecated as a source. I also see other folks voting "option 4". I'm troubled by that.

I'd readily concede to your point that Venezuelanalysis is presumably not a bastion of journalistic rigor. Probably much less rigorous than say, the NYT. But it's not a fake news propaganda outlet as some have suggested, nor is it one of those outlets that "somehow" never takes issue with anything its patron government does, like, say, Bellingcat.

Its aforementioned disagreements with the Venezuelan state suggest a level of ideological independence from the government, and it supposedly no longer takes government funds. Its opinions should always be attributed, and never belong in Wikivoice, I'll say that much. But as you know, I'm not much of a fan of having government-funded political opinions in Wikivoice, period.

I maintain that it includes noteworthy information about the politics of Venezuela and the broader region that might not be presented in other sources. If we had an embarrassment of riches in terms of good, high-quality on-the-ground analysis of Venezuelan politics, perhaps the conversation would be slightly different. But as it stands, I think dismissing the source would be a disservice to our encyclopedic coverage of Venezuela, despite its flaws. That's why I've voted "additional considerations apply", and I hope other editors will join me in that vote. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bellingcat has published plenty of articles about the US. A New Platform Maps US Police Violence Against Protesters, American-Made Bomb Used in Airstrike on Yemen Wedding etc. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Philomathes2357: You can see more on how this source and others were systematically removed in my edit above. Again, no sympathy for potential misinformation at all (which is why we are all here), but when readers are prevented from even having access to attributed information, at best it is assuming the reader is ignorant and at worst it is censorship. WMrapids (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4: Deprecate

"Venezuela Analysis" is a highly unreliable source. From its wikipedia page, it is described as a news outlet that supports the Maduro regime and its policies.

A quick glance at that site makes it clear that it is a highly politicized and conspiratorial network, and that its not an outlet that attempts to produce real news. This source should not be used at all, since it is a fake news outlet focused on generating pro-Maduro propaganda. This website is no different from an unreliable, self-published source.Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 : No user has yet to provide a single instance of a fabricated claim stated as fact in a VenezuelaAnalysis article. Mottezen (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mottezen: The Venezuelan Confederation of Israelite Associations (CAIV) identified Venezuelanalysis as one of the outlets that republished "distorted news, omissions and false accusations" about Israel from Iranian media, especially from HispanTV, since at least 2013 (see WP:RSN/Archive 265#RfC: HispanTV for more details).

Since you're the only editor supporting Option 1 for the time being, it would be good if you provided arguments for clasifying VA under said option or that you reconsider your vote. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to see the said article that were republished. I wouldn’t trust the CAIV for telling me Venezuelanalysis published false information. CAIV is a non-notable organisation that doesn’t even have a Wikipedia article, and its website is inactive since the pandemic. Why do you believe they are an authority on what is false or true?

If you read the arguments for option 2, it sounds like they are advocating for option 1, because biased sources can still have a stellar record for reporting facts, and opinion articles need to be attributed either way. Mottezen (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a Jewish association in the country is not relevant for an issue such as Antisemitism in Venezuela, I frankly don't know what is and what you would expect, particularly if you're using the current existance of an article in the English Wikipedia as a factor for notability (at any rate the organization meets WP:GNG, which means an article could be created at any moment regardless). --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish associations vary in their interpretations of antisemitism (case of point: IJV and the Board of Deputies). Coalitions that are inactive tend to be unreliable. Mottezen (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like a personal opinion, but ok. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New example added at bottom of RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 or 4: at least a 3, but there is a solid argument for 4, deprecation, because they routinely reprint content labeled as news from WP:TELESUR, a deprecated source and a chavista propaganda outlet,[39] and they do not retract or correct factual errors as time evolves and more information comes to light (see points 1 and 3 below).

Telesur is widely acknowledged as Venezuelan propaganda and rightfully deprecated on Wikipedia for printing false information. Venezuelanalysis reprints Telesur articles as news, not opinion (some of these articles are outright propaganda and misrepresentations, aka lies). A few samples (there is more): [40] [41] [42] In one case, a blatant misrepresentation based on Telesur propaganda, reprinted at Venezuelanalysis.com, was used to introduce a BLP vio into Wikipedia at Nelson Bocaranda (using primary and UNDUE sources[43] to parrot the Telesur lie).[44] Lessening our restrictions on Venezuelanalysis.com means more Telesur propaganda is likely to also be reflected on Wikipedia; it's not surprising they don't indicate editorial oversight or enjoy a reputation for fact-checking, when they parrot Telesur.
Nothing has changed since the last RFC. The map issue is misrepresented in some statements above: for example, that Switzerland and other countries were neutral was not "highly contested at the time" (noting also that Switzerland imposed sanctions on Maduro's government while agreeing to represent the US after it closed its Caracas embassy, so some mumbo-jumbo has to occur to represent via a map they support the Maduro government). Where do we draw the line between blatant lies and simple biased slanting? A good example of that is given in their coverage of the ...
2019 Venezuelan blackouts. It's one thing to parrot with bias the chavismo claim that the blackouts were caused by a cyberattack, as they did when the blackouts began in 2019.[45] [46] Presenting only one side's allegations is just bias, which is separate from reliability. But years later, repeating the same bias becomes a matter of absent editorial oversight or fact checking; it's quite another matter to still be parroting the chavismo stance in 2022, with narry a mention of mainstream facts, when not a scintilla of evidence to back the government claims has surfaced, and all unbiased sources acknowledge the causes of the blackouts. Sticking the word "alleged" in front of a blatantly false claim isn't cover for propagating this lie many years after the fact, when more information is known.[47] An entire book on the matter was published by a New York Times journalist.
Looking at the about page (and earlier iterations of it at archive.org) is always a first stop when evaluating reliability. Either they have never had a managing editor, or they don't want us to know who it is. Volunteers working around the world do not equate to "editorial oversight", and the current and all historical archives of their about page speak to staff (many of whom have no journalistic credentials), but not editorial oversight. As one example, I noticed multiple news articles written by Paul Dobson, a person with no journalistic training but an interest in Venezuela and seems to be this guy (which that website passes off as a journalist in spite of his Venezuelanalysis bio). I find nothing on their about page which speaks to fact checking or editorial oversight, rather rotating staff who have an interest in promoting chavismo-- that is, the better description of the website is a blog.

So, for now I'm at a 3+; if others produce more examples of spreading Telesur propaganda as news, then please consider me a 4, deprecate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This can be combatted in a similar conclusion to the La Patilla RfC; simply don't reproduce things source from deprecated sources and attribute properly.
There are multiple issues with the map that deserve context. Switzerland could still sanction a government and still recognize it (sanctions from them began in 2018, prior to the presidential crisis).
Again, no proof of any mistruths. VA literally writes "The Caribbean nation’s power generation and distribution infrastructure has suffered from a lack of maintenance, corruption and a brain drain, with the issues heavily compounded by wide-reaching US sanctions." So besides the debatable last portion, VA acknowledges corruption and brain drain in Venezuela's electrical management, something you would hardly hear from a propaganda outlet.
Plenty of sources have unclear management. La Patilla, for instance, doesn’t even have an "about" page, yet you quickly overlooked that in their RfC and provided the excuse that it was for "safety".

WMrapids (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Venezuelanalysis has a whole category dedicated to Telesur: TeleSUR Archives. Some of its articles include the following:

Collapsing links to prevent cramming
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73]

This includes but is not limited to the conspiracy theory that the 2019 nationwide blackouts were caused by a sabotage ([74]), something debunked by journalists and experts alike ([75]), as well as claims of university enrollment raising 294% ([76]), something also dismissed by fack checkers. Pinging @Mottezen:, who also asked for examples of false information. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have similarly found republications from Misión Verdad: [77][78][79][80][81][82]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the examples; this one is incredibly troubliing, as the novice reader is unlikely to understand how that game is played in Venezuela, as it reminds of the sudden naming of people responsible for the murder of Fernando Albán years after the fact; naming some lowly peons responsible after years of denial can help assure the higher-ups in the Maduro administration are not charged with crimes against humanity. I wonder what innocent unnamed person paid the price in the blackout arrest. I wonder if Venezuelanalysis has ever corrected, retracted or restated anything about that arrest report? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus: And? With La Patilla, you two both overlooked the usage of Breitbart, Epoch Times and other far-right conspiracy articles reposted by La Patilla. If we are going to go about the same way, we can just note not to use reposts of deprecated sources as we have done with La Patilla and to use the original source if VA is performing a repost. Your decisions appear more based on bias/ideology than based on reliability. WMrapids (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous differences between the reliability analysis of La Patilla and Venezuelanalysis.

One is Venezuelanalysis extensively using Telesur propaganda for its reporting of Venezuelan news (and it does little else) compared to the allegations in the La Patilla RFC about reprints of almost exclusively info unrelated to its Venezuela coverage (eg COVID). The first alleged reprint I checked in that overly long and bludgeoned discussion that was related to Venezuela had been removed by La Patilla within a day or two, demonstrating the presence of editorial oversight. Aggregated coverage from La Patilla is easily separated from its reporting on Venezuela and no instance of their reporting of Venezuela news was unreliable; Venezuelanalysis is Venezuelan news, and even when they don't directly reprint from Telesur, they report the same propaganda (eg the blackouts). Breitbart and Epoch Times aren't focused on Venezuela; Telesur and Venezuelanalysis are, so ignoring their reprints means ... ignoring them almost entirely, eg, unreliable.

The discussion of La Patilla and other outlets censored in Venezuela having no "About Us" page similarly doesn't even apply to Venezuelanalysis, which is not censored in Venezuela, for obvious reasons: it is pro-chavismo by definition from its outset, and its reporters have not been imprisoned or had to flee the country. A potential reason Venezuelanalaysis doesn't mention editorial oversight is because of the connection between Wilpert and his wife's position with chavismo; that is, obfuscating information for reasons unrelated to personal harm likely to come to reporters from other outlets who criticize the government.

Please avoid turning another RFC into another unreadable mess, and don't bludgeon by distorting and misrepresenting what I or anyone else said on a different RFC with entirely different circumstances and then lacing your comments with aspersions; I most certainly did not "overlook" the aggregated issue, rather I addressed it explicitly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The example that you provided is misleading. La Patilla still has the same article posted, though they hid the mention of Breitbart in the headline. Recognizing that this isn’t a discussion about La Patilla, it still doesn't change how you and NoonIcarus have different opinions are similar discussions. NoonIcarus was one of the only users to find La Patilla "generally reliable" and they now want to deprecate Venezuelanalysis after already leading a crusade to remove it from the project entirely (even removing some content against previous consensus suggestions). I won’t comment further on this to avoid blodgeoning, though the behavior of you two should be on the record for other users. WMrapids (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps you should have brought that information forward on that RFC, not this one. (For that matter, maybe you did, and it was lost among your bludgeoning). And no, La Patilla did not hide the Breitbart, as I can see it clearly in the link you provide. Stop the aspersions that serve only to muddy another RFC; focus on content. I retain my view that Venezuelanalysis is only marginally different from Telesur outright propaganda; I remain at 3+ but the false information about increasing university enrollment that NoonIcarus pointed out is also a concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly notice that my main argument for this RfC has not been based in the use of deprecated sources (which at this point I think is implicit and already demonstrated), but rather the lack of editorial independence of Venezuelanalysis, as well as several and consistent concerns by editors throughout the years, and I focused in providing only news articles, leaving aside opinion ones that were included in the other RfC. In La Patilla's RfC I commented how many of the examples were uncontroversial and even unrelated (crediting Breitbart for images as an example of republishing content), being an example of WP:SOURCECOUNTING, but there are also important differences between both outlets as Sandy commented.

Now, since you brought it up, I think it is important to reassure the noticeboard that the opening of this RfC is unrelated to the outcome of La Patilla's RfC, which was different to your preferred one, that you disputed, and is about a Venezuelan source too. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The VenezuelaAnalysis link you allege discusses the 2019 blackout is dated from 2017. And the 294% increase in university admissions is over 14 years, so this figure does not strain credulity. China experienced a similar growth in the number of university students over the same period. Plus, you have not provided a link that debunks this claim. Mottezen (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Separately from what NoonIcarus presents, the article where they repeat the chavista propaganda blackout conspiracy theory that I present is 2022, with an "alleged" stuck on for cover. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that that the same article also says the following 4 paragraphs above: The Caribbean nation’s power generation and distribution infrastructure has suffered from a lack of maintenance, corruption and a brain drain, with the issues heavily compounded by wide-reaching US sanctions. This is verbatim the main explanation of the 2019 blackouts in our wikipedia article on the subject, presented as a plain hard fact by VenezuelaAnalysis in each of their articles I saw on the subject.

And the full sentence you are referring to is: In early 2019, Venezuela suffered a string of widespread blackouts that covered virtually all of its territory following alleged terrorist attacks. (external links in original, each linking to articles about the governments allegations of the attacks.) Each time the "attacks on electricity generation" claims are relayed by VenezuelaAnalysis, it is always attributed to the government of Venezuela, or simply with an with an "alleged" to differentiate it from the proven facts. Mottezen (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See BobFromBrockley post above at 11:08, 17 October 2023 demonstrating how reliable sources report compared to Venanalysis; it's the same thing. They repeat the conspiracy theory unnecessarily, for which there is zero credible evidence, but try to dress it up by sticking an alleged on it. This is four years after the fact; everyone knows better by now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s very revealing that there is no answer to my argument m. It’s an admission option 1 is right Mottezen (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New example of false information added at the bottom of this RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bad RfC/Keep previous result (or option 4) this seems like another rushed RfC argued on the basis of misuse of the description of source in a specific article and on a contested (?) result in a different RfC. Per others this source is clearly troubling. It produces or reproduces what other pro-Venezuelan government sources like Correo del Orinoco, Telesur to maintain the government narrative [83] and it is clearly highly opinionated. --ReyHahn (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a masterful tour through the interconnected outlets for Venezuelan propaganda, showing the links between Venezuelanalysis and the rest of the propaganda network; what a pity it's not in English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, NoonIcarus had already posted this "masterful tour" and, as said above, is an article that plainly paints with a brush of guilt by association. We know that VA has former government staff and reposts some Venezuelan government articles. But that doesn't make VA directly unreliable, it makes the specific reposts unreliable and shows a bias, which isn't related to reliability (just using your previous reasoning).

ReyHahn, whether or not it "reproduces what other pro-Venezuelan government sources" say or is "highly opinionated", it does not make it unreliable. In your "Option 2" choice for La Patilla, you said "some important examples of unreliable behaviour have been brought here but a few examples are not sufficient to make it a perennial or deprecated source". There haven't been any secondary sources providing proof of VA being unreliable (though its reposts may be questionable). You said La Patilla was "independent" even though its founder and leader Alberto Federico Ravell was part of the Juan Guaidó government and it has been widely been described as an opposition outlet. You also said that La Patilla "published many articles about government and opposition scandals". Well, guess what? So has Venezuelanalysis! So your argument that VA is "pro-government" and thus unreliable is hypocritical.WMrapids (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just if I might drop in, English audiences might be familiar with the criminalization of demonstrators and opposition leaders, with terms such as "fascists" ([84][85][86]) or "terrorists" ([87]), similar to the tone used by right-wing outlets against groups such as antifa. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are opinion articles while the last article clearly attributes the claim to the government. Meanwhile your "Option 1" source La Patilla writes that "The Maduro regime subscribed to the interests of the Hamas terrorist group" after he only mentioned the difficulties faced by Palestinians, misattributing the EFE source. It has promoted the term "terrorist" towards Maduro in multiple instances, especially recently.[88][89][90][91] I'm not here to defend Maduro at all or continue past arguments, but you have some apparent double standards when determining source reliability. WMrapids (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4: Just another propaganda & fake news outlet serving the interests of a dictatorship. Tradedia^talk 19:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 per widespread arguments in the La Patilla RfC where editors argued that in instances where La Patilla was aggregating content, editors should not use any aggregated content and should evaluate original sources and use those if reliable. That Venezuelanalysis has reprinted Telesur can be treated in the same manner in this situation. I don’t find any other arguments strong enough for marking the source as unreliable or deprecation. There are accusations of bias towards the Venezuelan government’s perspective due to funding but I don’t see how those currently hold water given that there has been no evidence presented that Venezuela continues to fund Venezuelanalysis. TarnishedPath^talk 05:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo - a source isn't unreliable because it reposts content that Wikipedians dislike. We could simply use VA's original articles, and treat the articles from deprecated sources as originating from the deprecated source, not VA. There's ample precedent for this. I also don't see how those funding arguments hold water given the fact that we regularly cite news outlets funded in whole or in part by governments, including multiple state-owned media outlets from the west. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look above for examples of misleading or false content. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen them. My response would be that one can find examples of misleading or false content in every reliable source. Especially misleading content. VA is no different. But there is also a lot of useful information published there, that may not be widely available elsewhere in the English language press, and, especially given Wikipedia's ongoing problem with underrepresenting the points of view of people in the Global South, it would be a shame to "throw out the baby with the bathwater" and deprecate the source based on some cherry-picked misleading or potentially false stories.

Imagine if we had deprecated the NYT post-Iraq invasion? We certainly could have listed a lot of misleading and false reports, which had devastating real-life consequences, particularly those by Judith Miller - at least as many misleading reports as have been listed in this RFC. But deprecating NYT would have been a grave mistake, because we would have missed out on all the useful information that they publish. I'm not suggesting that NYT and VA are equivalent, but I am suggesting that the same logic necessitates, at minimum, voting "option 3" instead of "option 4". Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful, the examples of "false content" provided above are not actually false content. In most of the examples, VenezuelaAnalysis was ont reporting statements from government official, and it's true they said those things. Not one false statement found that was reported as fact by VenezuelaAnalysis. Mottezen (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again this is the work that we expect editors to do when citing sources. If a sources is quoting a government official, make it clear that the quote that is being used is a quote of a government official and not the article voice. I think this goes back to themes in my bolded vote. TarnishedPath^talk 11:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. What's your reaction to Mottezen's assertion here, @NoonIcarus? Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point still stands my point still stands since there are many examples of the publication of false content from an editorial voice, and not only citing government officials: Pernalete's and Albán's killings, the reasons for blackouts, the university enrollment rate, and so on, and that's without going into misleading reporting and omissions, such as labelling the opposition as "fascists" or "terrorists", or offering uncritical comment to government policies, respectively. VA's description by independent sources leaves much to be desired, and this position has been shared by editors in Wikipedia since at least 2010. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite me examples of the publication of false content from an editorial voice published by VenezuelaAnalysis. I have yet to find any such examples. Read above how purported examples misrepresented VA articles. Mottezen (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look again at the examples I have provided above, or those provided below by SandyGeorgia. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PROPOSAL TO CLOSE Having taking the position that a new RFC was unwarranted given the dearth of actual citations to the source, it is probably inappropriate for me to close. But, after almost two weeks of discussion which has become largely repetitive among a handful of combatants, I would conclude that the consensus among the uninvolved, experienced editors who regularly contribute at RSN is the same as the last RFC: #3 bordering on #4. I'd invite any uninvolved experienced editor to close this RFC. Banks Irk (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New (2022) example (when does omission become a lie?):
From News, Venezuela to ‘Rebuild Fellowship’ with Petro Gov’t in Colombia, August 8, 2022
The alleged participants included former far-right opposition lawmaker Juan Requesens, who was sentenced to 8 years after confessing to having assisted in bringing in the explosive-laden drones used in the attack.

Overlooking that VA consistently refers to opposition figures like Maria Corina Machado as far right, when unbiased sources don't, this News article states without reservation that Requesens confessed; they say he was an "alleged participant" in what is a disputed plot to begin with, but not that he "allegedly" confessed to bringing in the explosives. Please compare evidence of that "confession" to Wikipedia's reliably sourced account of this "confession". (Other Maduro administration coerced "confessions" covered at this article.) This is another example of how the allowance of Venezuelanalysis as a reliable source would impact BLPs. The author of that News item (a former writer for the deprecated Telesur) also writes this recent item, whose misrepresentations are so extensive that an analysis here would be TLDR and bore everyone to tears. This source lies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says "alleged" regarding Requesens and while you do bring up the opposition claiming he was drugged, he did technically confess. Whether that was under duress will probably forever be under debate. Also, taking a look at Maria Corina Machado before her article was recently scrubbed shows that plenty of other reliable sources describe her as "far right", so VA is not too out of line with reliable sources. Finally, more false equivalency between staff of VA and Telesur without a necessary TLDR that would explain any valid concern. WMrapids (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Requesens shat his pants during that confession. Facts such as that shouldn't be in question at this point. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure a lot of people would too if they were captured and accused of attempting to kill a sitting president. As much as I disagree with actions by the Venezuelan government, you using the direct accusations by the opposition and presenting them as "facts ... that shouldn't be in question" shows exactly where your head is at. WMrapids (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless that theory is presented by sources, it is a personal conjecture that has no bearing in the discussion, and even then, I'm sure none of them have this broadcasted in national television. Reliable sources say that Requesens' sphincter loosened after being drugged ([92][93][94]), just to mention a few). VA could have gone with their own theory, but they don't even acknowledge the fact, which fails to provide an accurate picture of the situation and is SandyGeorgia's main point. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the real quote (from the old version of the article): The alleged participants included former far-right opposition lawmaker Juan Requesens, who was sentenced to 8 years after confessing to having assisted in bringing in the explosive-laden drones used in the attack.

See the hyperlink?? It redirects to an article which states that:

Alleged personal testimony implicates both Borges and Requesens, as well as a series of other citizens allegedly involved.

So the omission of "alleged" here is a mistake, as stated by TFD. If a wikipedia used this to use this article as a source for Requesens confession, the VenezuelaAnalysis article linked in the same sentence of that fact can be used as a reason for reverting that edit. To paint the source as "generally unreliable" based on this mistake would be blowing things way out of proportion. Mottezen (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bobfrombrockley, you provided two examples of how coveraage differs in Venezuelanalysis and rs. Can you point to any differences in the facts reported? Reliability is determined by whether reporting is factual, not which party they happen to endorse. TFD (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you one just above this; they say Requesens confessed, which is so dubious as to be more akin to a falsehood. The way other sources treat the "confession" is at his article. And I disagree with the statement that the placement of the 'alleged' isn't relevant; they say he was an alleged participant; they clearly don't say he 'allegedly' confessed. They present that as fact. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closure request;[95] (The Four Deuces, I did not see your new comment when I added the closure request; please let me know if you think I should withdraw it. I suspect that the closure requests are running so far behind that it won't make a difference, and anyone looking here to close won't do so if new comments are still coming in anyway, so I'm inclined to leave it alone, unless you disagree.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 According to CBC News, "Officials have released a filmed statement of Requesens that they say shows an admission, but he never appears to confess or mention the attack."[96] Venezuelanalysis incorrectly says he confessed,as SandyGeorgia points out.

In order to address the question, we should a reliable source that assesses the reliability of Venezuelanalysis. As some editors have pointed out, errors of this type occur in all media. It's a matter of expert judgment whether this makes the source unreliable.

In the absence of a reliable source that says Venezuelanalysis is reliable, I cannot support option one. However, I wouldn't support Option 4 either, which would preclude using any articles even ones that met rs for self-publication.

TFD (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the acknowledgement, and understand your hesitancy relative to other reliable sources, but in the interest of assuring the extent of inaccuracies in Venezuelanalysis is adequately reflected in the closing statement of this RFC, I note that scores of instances similar to the misrepresentation of the confession exist.

Here's another example: Venezuelanalysis reported on April 22, 2023 that "Albán, an opposition councilman, fell to his death from a tenth-floor window in October 2018." Note the dates in relation to how other sources reported on his death all along, until early May 2023, when chavismo admitted he had been murdered in custody. There is no "reportedly" attached to that Venezuelanalysis sentence, as there are to other statements in the same report. The rest of the paragraph gives the howevers/disclaimers, but nonetheless, the sentence states as fact that he "fell to his death" years after that was known to be a dubious statement, as reported by reliable sources; you can see our reliably sourced account at Fernando Albán for a good sampling of how other sources handled the account all along.

Samples like this abound; the source should never be used for a BLP, and is equally unreliable in its por-chavismo statistical/economic reporting. When the misrepresentations are frequent, systematic, and never withdrawn, they aren't errors like any news outlet; at some point, the preponderance of misrepresentations accumulate to being part of the chavista propaganda network. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article you are referencing is titled Venezuela: Attorney General Launches Probe into Corruption Suspect Custody Death. It is about how the Venezuela government is investigating suspicious deaths of suspects in the custody of SEBIN.

The neutral statement you fished at the bottom of that article is in the same paragraph as the following sentences:

Authorities originally ruled [Alban's death] a suicide. However, the investigation was reopened following pressure from multilateral organizations, including the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and two SEBIN officers were charged with involuntary manslaughter.

To me, this article illustrates VenezuelaAnalysis' commitment to covering the news accurately despite its POV. Mottezen (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two lowly officers being charged in Venezuela may or may not have any relationship to whoever did whatever really happened, or ordered it done. They don't mention what all reliable sources reported since 2018 (water on his lungs), and they don't mention what chavismo officials claimed it was suicide. Because mentioning those individuals would perhaps not be politic, and maybe Venanalysis cares more about not being censored in Venezuela, like the rest of the press has, than journalistic standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe they didn't elaborate more because Alban is not the subject of that article. Mottezen (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a mention either on how human rights groups, relatives and others criticized that the officers were not indicted with torture or mmurder, but rather with a more lenient charge (involuntary manslaughter). At the end they were sentenced to less than 3 years in prison, contrary to the 10 or 15 years at least they could have faced otherwise, meaning they have already been released. Venezuelanalysis fails to mention any of this, and as such fails to provide an accurate picture of the case. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed VenezuelaAnalysis about this mistake, and they published a correction immediately:

Editor’s note: This article was amended on Nov. 11, 2023 to correct information concerning Requesens’ imprisonment. A previous version stated that he confessed his involvement in the 2018 assassination attempt against Maduro. However, this was asserted by Venezuelan authorities, not publicly disclosed.

Issuing corrections is a signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy, per WP:NEWSORG. Mottezen (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work, and I'm glad that you got them to correct one error, but there are scores to hundreds more just like it. It's a systematic issue, and while picking out the blatant like this one is fairly easy for those who follow reliable sources, it's not necessarily easy for average readers, who may be misled, and getting the less apparent corrected could comprise an entire career.

Since Wikipedia is so high profile, might they have made such a speedy correction to satisfy this discussion and increase their chances at having their reliability viewed more favorably on Wikipedia?

Would you be willing to also ask them why "Alban ... fell to this death", rather than adding the persons who "reported that Alban ... fell to his death"? Or why they left out entirely the mention that other/most sources reported there was water in his lungs when he "fell"?
Would you be willing to ask them to explain in full Venezuelanalysis detail their characterization in this article of Jose Brito ? The Official Journal of the European Union provides some helpful starting places for their research.
If I can also ask you to do the favor of getting them to correct the errors here, that would be helpful.

There's scores more; correcting one error doesn't convince they will do more of same, or continue doing same if they can get more of their "work" spread across Wikipedia. But if you are also successful at getting them to address those three, for starters, I'd be willing to upgrade my previous declaration (3 or 4). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to just assert there are "scores to hundreds more just like it". You must explain what they get wrong with reliable sources instead of just re-asserting previous arguments. Point 1 and 3 deal with issues discussed earlier in the RfC. For 2, it's unclear what you object to in the characterization of José Brito in that article. In any case, you should email them yourself. Mottezen (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel a lot will be accomplished on this thread by me adding scores of examples, when I've already been shown correct on several, to the extent of a surprisingly speedy correction when you wrote them. Because of Wikipedia's prominence, it's likely that Venezuelanalysis staff is following this thread. Even if you don't see the problem with the second example, by reading the European Parliament source (which I provide even though it's a primary source, because it's in English and most secondary sources are in Spanish, but say the same thing), that's OK, because Venezuelanalysis editors will know what's wrong with it, and do know how to correct all three of these examples. I'm not changing my stance on VA based on you getting them to correct one blatant error that never should have been written to begin with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A small amendment made more than a year after the article's publication cannot be proof of editorial oversight, unlike other outlets whose corrections are issued in days (or either minutes or hours, in the best cases). Furthermore, the current version still refers to Requesens inaccurately as "far-right". --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this particular example is something that was very well known a very long time ago, and they did nothing until a Wikipedian wrote to them: odd, that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @The Four Deuces:. I was meaning to provide descriptions by reliable sources but forgot, too many irons in the fire.

The first thing that I noticed is that barely any reliable sources cite VA, which should be a red flag per WP:USEBYOTHERS. When it was, it has been consistently described as "pro-Chávez" (such as by Financial Times). One of the most interesting ones that I found was at a New York Times critical review of Oliver Stone's South of the Border, where it criticizes that outlet's conflicts of interests where not disclosed when discussing the Llaguno Overpass events, stating that it was set up with donations from the Venezuelan government, affiliations that Mr. Stone does not disclose.

However, I found several descriptions offered by Caracas Chronicles:

In its early days, back in 2004 and possibly one of its first post, the editors address this comment directly to Gregory Wilpert: So Greg, please, if you want to have a discussion of income inequality, social exclusion, and privilege, let's have it. I think I can show Chavez has deepened each of those, not with rhetoric, but with statistics. But please don't falsify Venezuela's reality by making claims about race relations that are not only wrong, but destructive.
Weeks later, it offers a rather sarcastic description, questioning the site's financement and editorial independence: Venezuelanalysis.com is an editorially independent website produced by individuals who are dedicated to disseminating news and analysis about Venezuela. It is financially dependent upon donations and advertising. Hmmm. I wonder what that means exactly. Who are these donors? Who are these advertisers? are there any advertisers? How much does a Google sponsored link cost anyway? Who pays? And how come an “editorially independent website” has a links section with seven pro-Chavez links and not a single voice on the other side?
Again, months later the same year, VA is described as being part of Chávez' "delusional servants" when criticizing the presidency's political detentions, saying: You can find some by lifting the rocks in haunts such as Venezuelanalysis.com or Le Monde Diplomatique. How about the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)? [...] They are all are marked by a common denominator: an inability, or unwillingness, to conduct solid, quantititative analysis to support their ideals. And so these princes and princesses of the proletariat market and sell their flim-flam dreams from far away, with no concept of practical realities inherent in an economy they completely disregard. While the poor, whose numbers have escalated in the past five years of the Chavez administration, are left with no option but to buy in, in exchange for dole. And tears when hunger is at the doorstep.
Years later, in 2010, Caracas Chronicles describes VA and Wilpert as "government apologists", pointing out to false claims about the Llaguno Overpass events: But Wilpert is misinformed. Not only were there plenty of National Guard troops around Miraflores that day, but they were actually deployed, en masse, on Baralt Avenue. They sat there all afternoon, watching a four-hour gun battle and did nothing to stop it. Which brings new credence to reports that Chávez and his cabinet had discussed deploying the Bolivarian Circles in conjunction with the National Guard four days before the march.

We should bear in mind that Caracas Chronicles, specially in its early years, has had a left-wing, albeit critical, editorial line.

Last but not least, we have the Portales de la mentira report, republished by media outlets such as Efecto Cocuyo, El Estímulo, and Alberto News. As mentioned above, it puts VA's reliability into question.

Please let us know if these descriptions would make you reconsider your vote. Kind regards and best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political bias and reliability are two separate issues. There is nothing in policy that says sources written by people who do not support U.S. foreign policy or capitalism are unacceptable. Ownership or support of a publication is also irrelevant. The Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, al Jazeera is supported by @atar and NBC was owned by a defence contractor.

Also, analysis in news media is unreliable per policy.

I don't think the sources you provided qualify as experts.

I checked one of the complaints in the article by Effecto Cocuyo you provided. It accuses South Front of spreading Russian disinformation by falsely claiming that the U.S. diverted $601 million of Venezuelan funds to the border wall with Mexico. In fact, the article in South Front did not make this claim: it reported what a Univision article had claimed. Univision actually made this claim in an article written by its senior editor, David C. Adams.[97]

Univision is a respected source.[98] But if you think running this type of story merits banning a publication, you should start with Univision, which it probably used in Wikipedia far more frequently.

I will however change my vote to unreliable. That means that the only articles we should use are ones that would be considered reliable if they were self-published. TFD (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what you're saying. I wanted to bring the attention both to the issue of editorial independence and of reliability (in this case, regarding the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt). --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Al-Mayadeen

I recently removed this article "False claims on alleged 'Kfar Aza massacre' now on Wikipedia" from the Kfar Aza massacre article because I thought that it was frankly drivel. It seems to be propaganda that denies the massacre actually happened in the first place, which I don't think any RS are disputing, and cited deprecated sources like The Grayzone as evidence. It has been previously discussed once before here in 2015 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 196, but that was largely about their Arabic language coverage. I get the impression reading the Al-Mayadeen article that their pro Syria govt/Hezbollah bias makes them a wholly unsuitable source to use on Wikipedia, except to report the official views of those factions.english.almayadeen.net shows that they are currently used 82 times. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

almayadeen.net

shows 187 uses. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think they should be classified as Generally Unreliable

They promotes the US bioweapons in Ukraine conspiracy theory [99]
Their owners are anonymous and it's suspected that it's funded by Iran and Hezbollah [100]
They said themselves that the Palestinian "cause" would be their centerpiece, so they are unlikely to provide reliable coverage of the region [101]

Alaexis_¿question? 07:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Al-Mayadeen" is a fake news, conspiratorial outlet, and it should be deprecated.

Check its wikipedia page and its "Ownership" section which reveals its funding. "Al-Mayadeen" outlet's owner is anonymous. The outlet has also been described as a joint Iranian-Assadist propaganda project.^[1]

In news reporting, "Al-Mayadeen" outlet is explicitly pro-Assad, pro-Iran and pro-Russia. That website has a pattern of promoting conspiracy theories of outlets like Grayzone, Sputnik, PressTV, SANA, etc.

In Syria, it is a vehement opponent of Syrian opposition, dehumanises the Free Syrian Army as "terrorists" and labels Assad regime's indiscriminate bombardment operations as "cleansing".^[2] It is strongly pro-Russia and describes the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a "special operation to demilitarize and "denazify" Ukraine" and literally labelled the Zelensky government in Ukraine as a "Nazi regime".

Its clear that this outlet is nothing but a propaganda venture that doesnt have basic journalistic standards or even care about producing real news.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "'Anti-Al Jazeera' channel Al Mayadeen goes on air". France 24. 12 June 2012. Retrieved 6 July 2012.
^ "Executive Summary" (PDF). Syria Cyber Watch. 25 November 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 December 2012. Retrieved 6 December 2012.

RFC: Al-Mayadeen

The result of the discussion was a clear consensus to deprecate Al-Mayadeen (option 4). Some editors believe it publishes lies or misrepresents sources, some describe it as propaganda. There were some editors who considered generally unreliable (option 3) an acceptable outcome, however those editors seemed generally fine with deprecation. The lone remaining dissenter's arguments were effectively rebutted. (non-admin closure) —siro χ o 04:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

What is the reliability of Al-Mayadeen

1. Generally reliable
2. Unclear/special considerations apply
3. Generally unreliable
4. Deprecate

Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responses (Al-Mayadeen)

Option 4 Like RT (TV network) and Sputnik (news agency) the primary purpose of this organisation appears to be propaganda that wilfully distorts facts to fit its agenda. It has no place on Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 A propaganda outlet of a dictatorial regime. Jeppiz (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4: Depracate

I have explained the overtly unreliable nature of this fake news-outlet in my previous comment above the RfC section. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 If it pro-Assad and pro-Hezbollah, editors would have to figure out when it is lying and when it is not. Better do not use it at all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 I'm against deprecation of sources on the bases of bias. So I spent some time reading some of the articles separate from the one in question. This source should never be used. Several articles contained lies and I don't mean I disagree with their interpretation, but that they give a link for their source and their sources states the opposite of the wording they have chosen. There are other extremely problematic issues with the articles, but the deliberate misuse of sources to try and mislead readers rules out any use of this site. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be instructive if you illustrate further. Not doubting you, but given some of the other commentary here. Andre🚐 23:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an example of an outright, unambiguous, intentional "lie" promoted by this outlet? That could potentially change my vote, but I'm not too thrilled about deprecating an outlet based on "they've published lies" without some more analysis and discussion. Thanks. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm not willing to provide links to this site, I believe it's that problematic. This is my analysis, and as I have said I'm generally against deprecation, if you wish to see the problems I suggest you do your own analysis. I'm not just saying "they've published lies", I spent an hour or so going through the details and articles of the site and what I found was deeply troubling. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see outright, unambiguous, intentional lies, or opinions that troubled you and shocked your moral sensibilities? I see plenty of the latter, but not nearly enough of the former to vote option 4. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per my previous comments I see outright intentional lies, this has nothing to do with opinions or 'moral sensibilities' but the deliberate distortion of a source to make statements that are the inverse of what the source states. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's disappointing that you're willing to throw potentially useful information down the memory hole, due to alleged "intentional lies", but you are unable/unwilling to provide even a single example. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh shut up. You've made your point over and over. I've not "alleged" anything, while your entire involvement on this board appears to be about making aspersions at other editors. This source intentionally misuses sources to make statements that are not backed up by those sources, and that is one of its minor failings. But please go on believing the opposite, you must be right and all the other commentators in this RFC wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also maybe read WP:SATISFY. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 I'm convinced by the arguments that we do not need this source and we can safely remove it. Andre🚐 22:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 The above arguments say it all, we can find sources that are more reliable. C͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏u͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏r͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏s͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏ed Peace (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Sock[reply]
Option 3 in the best case, per my arguments above (promotion of conspiracy theories, affiliation with Hezbollah, having a "cause"). Alaexis_¿question? 07:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 per the previous arguments, as well as previous discussions on the issue. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3+ This is an unamibigously generally unreliable source. Our article on it is a little in need of updating and I actually have a windowful of tabs with mentions via Google News and Google Scholar that I've been meaning to incorporate into the article, but it is clear from them that the issues identified in the 2010s are worse rather than better. I hesitate about deprecation, as there might be times when it could be considered useful (e.g. for the wisdom of Hassan Nasrallah) but I wouldn't object to deprecation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - I could be convinced to vote option 3, but option 4 is a travesty.

It's frankly depressing to see how giddy editors are to deprecate non-Western sources. Systemic bias hard at work, in my view. Al-Mayadeen is a widely-used source of information in the Arab world, with reporters in "most Arab countries" per our own article. Much of their staff consists of former Al Jazeera employees. Yes, they have a bias, which they lay out in detail in their "About us" section. It would be nice if other outlets followed suit, and dropped the ludicrous self-serving pretense that they're conducting "objective" journalism.

If we carry on like this, and every source that deviates from Western consensus is dismissed as "propaganda", "fake news", and "state funded", we will have an encyclopedia that only presents the mainstream Western point of view, to the exclusion of other points of view. The erroneous assumption that underlies this way of thinking is that the mainstream Western consensus represents "objectivity", while any deviation from that point of view represents an incorrigible "bias".

Biases are sort of like accents - almost nobody thinks that they have one, especially if everyone around them has the same accent that they do. Many small-minded people in the USA, who think that they don't have an accent, might make comments like "people from India don't speak English the right way". That's pretty much the attitude I get from the comments here, at the Venezuelanalysis RFC, and at many, many other places on Wikipedia. Non-Westerners don't do journalism "the right way", as defined by models like CNN and BBC.

The fact that sources that contradict mainstream Western consensus are so casually dismissed as "biased" suggests that most editors (practically all of whom are Westerners) are so steeped in pro-Western narratives that those narratives appear "normal" and "unbiased", and it also suggests that most editors aren't conversant in non-Western points of view about politics, which is why, when exposed to them, they apply a reductive analysis and conclude that they must be "fake news" or "pro-X propaganda". It's a huge blind spot on this website.

This source should be used to establish the notability of a topic, or to cite attributed opinions, but shouldn't be used to make Wikivoice statements of fact. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's frankly depressing to see how giddy editors are to deprecate non-Western sources (and much else in your comment) is an aspersion, please strike it. I'm certainly not giddy to deprecate any source, I think your own biases are shown in how you depict other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Bias is not unreliablity" is a straw man. This is an unreliable source because it's unreliable not because it's biased. Plenty of non-western media is excellent. From the same region, Enab Baladi, The New Arab, Asharq Al-Awsat, Al-Arabiya, The National, Arab News (mostly), Orient News are all reliable. Similarly, editors arguing that La Patilla is more reliable than Venezeulanalysis are not doing so because it is more western (in fact VA has more western writers than La Patilla does). Please don't let your general bugbear about bias overcome a basic evaluation of a dreadful news website. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Honestly, wp:cir, this site is obviously fake news. Cursed Peace (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)~~ Sock[reply]

Option 4 Complete propaganda and fake news garbage. Piece of shit. Also, the commentator above me is barking at the wrong tree. We use TONS of non-western reliable sources. Tradedia^talk 02:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did use the term "non-Western" once, but what I'm really talking about are points of view that deviate from the mainstream western consensus, whether the outlets that express those points of view are geographically based in the west or not. I know this is off-topic so won't continue the discussion unless it appears immediately relevant, but could you name a couple of non-western sources that largely deviate from the mainstream western consensus on geopolitics that are labeled "reliable"? If you could, it might serve as a good point of contrast against Al-Mayadeen. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Al Jazeera is reliable. South China Morning Post is still reliable last I checked. Haaretz. Uhh... "You name a couple of sources," isn't really how this works. Andre🚐 03:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was just curious about what sources he had in mind when he refers to non-western reliable outlets, in contrast to his characterizations of Al-Mayadeen as "complete propaganda" and "fake news". Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support option 3 or option 4. As Alaexis has pointed out above, the website promotes the Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory. There are at least 21 articles on the website with a "US biolabs" tag, but some, such as "US tested neuromodulators on socially vulerable Ukrainians", are not marked so. In addition, the outlet often cites unreliable sources for its "reporting", such as Twitter accounts ([102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108]), MintPress News ([109] [110] [111] [112] [113]), and The Grayzone ([114] [115] [116] [117] [118]). In at least one case it has republished a fabricated news story from the Russian state outlet TASS, without marking it as such. Other than a brief mention in a Reuters article (which notes that "There was no independent confirmation of any of the attacks and Reuters could not ascertain whether they had taken place"), I could not find any reliable sources covering this alleged attack. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 This "news" source hosts holocaust denial articles, i.e. "The Holocaust — that great deception". I am not sure how anyone could read this and think "seems reliable to me" Cursed Peace (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Sock and double bold vote. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4. Clearest imaginable case. Neutrality^talk 02:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 Blatantly propaganda akin to RT. The Kip 04:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 Blatant propaganda, it is Hezbollah's version of RT. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 Obvious propaganda. Wonder if this falls under WP:SNOW now. Ladsgroup^overleg 01:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Al-Mayadeen)

@Alaexis: and @Shadowwarrior8: who have already given thoughts about the organisation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Bobfrombrockley, who had very recently commented on this "news"-network elsewhere. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems at best "reliability unclear" or "consensus unclear." I had looked at it and presumed it a WP:NEWSORG, with a bias, but republishing material from other problematic sources is problematic. Andre🚐 22:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a notice on Talk:Al Mayadeen about this discussion. For the sake of participation can anyone suggest any other places to give notification? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note at Wikiproject Arab world about this. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

RfC: Correo del Orinoco (Orinoco Tribune)

There is consensus that Correo del Orinoco is generally unreliable. It is near-unanimous that this source is not reliable, with responses ranging between generally unreliable and deprecate. There was not enough engagement in the RFC to take a step as significant as deprecation, so generally unreliable it is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

What is the reliability of Correo del Orinoco (Orinoco Tribune)?

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

A previous discussion in this noticeboard from 2010 mentioned Correo del Orinoco: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Break 6: on Correo del Orinoco

Comment This RfC has been started at the request of M.Bitton. Correo del Orinoco is currently used in 92 pages in the English Wikipedia. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 (at least)/4: Correo del Orinoco is a Venezuelan state-owned newspaper that is part of the Bolivarian Communication and Information System state media conglomerate. There's already a precedent in this noticeboard of demonstrating that outlets from this conglomerate publish and amplify misleading and/or false information, and that the fact that Venezuela is a country with a low level of freedom of the press affects its reliability, the main example being WP:TELESUR.

A report from the Venezuelan fact-checking coalition C-Informa "Portals of lies: the international swarm of 'independent media' at the service of Chavista narratives" (also mentioned above, in the currently opened RfC: Venezuelanalysis) explains how Correo del Orinoco is directed by a Venezuelan government official and has amplified propaganda in the past:

In the case of media such as Venezuelanalysis, Orinoco Tribune and even the now censored Aporrea, a team full of current and former Venezuelan diplomats in the United States, former ministers and both former and active editors of Telesur, RT and Venezuelan state media operates.
It is directed by Jesús Rodríguez-Espinoza, who was Venezuelan consul in Chicago, between 2008 and 2017, replacing Martín Sánchez (Aporrea / Venezuelanalysis). His articles were used at the beginning of the digital campaign in favor of Alex Saab.

Its bias and lack of neutrality shows that the outlet does not have editorial independence, and its reliability has already been questioned in Wikipedia discussions throughout the years, including due to the republication from unreliable or deprecated outlets:

On the much discussed issue of independence of Venezuelanalysis staff, referring in this particular instance to Eva Golinger, here is evidence of the sort of independence these people have from the Venezuelan State [...] For the language impaired, it means that the Chavez regime, through Congress, has approved some $3.2 million, so that Golinger's propaganda rag can reach more people. – Alekboyd, WP:RSN/Archive 55, 10:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After all that research, you did not find that Eva Golinger just got $3.2 million from the Chavez regime to carry on with her propaganda activities in Correo del Orinoco? – Alekboyd, WP:RSN/Archive 58, 3 March 2010
Correo del Orinoco and Venezuelanalysis are both parrots of state propaganda. – SandyGeorgia, WT:VEN/Archive 4, 15 April 2019
According to the Antisemitism in Venezuela 2013 report by the Venezuelan Confederation of Israelite Associations (CAIV) which focuses on the issue of antisemitism in Venezuela, "distorted news, omissions and false accusations" of Israel originate from Iranian media in Latin America, especially from HispanTV. Such "distorted news" is then repeated by the Russia's RT News and Cuba's Prensa Latina, and Venezuela’s state media, including SIBCI, AVN, TeleSUR, [...] Correo del Orinoco and Ciudad CCS – SandyGeorgia, WP:RSN/Archive 265#RfC: HispanTV, 19 April 2019
The recently created Orinoco Tribune [...] uses Telesur, Grayzone and Venezuelanalysis (see WP:RSP) as its primary sources – ZiaLater, WP:RSN/Archive 287#RfC: Grayzone, 18 December 2019
[...] Chavismo forced owners of paper manufacturing companies into exile on bogus charges so they could take over paper production and allocate paper only to Chavez-friendly press like Correo del Orinoco (2009) [...] – SandyGeorgia, WP:RSN/Archive 415#RfC: La Patilla, 15 August 2023

Indeed, a quick look through fact checkers will show a consistent history of publishing misleading and/or false information, and how Orinoco Tribune participated in the influence operation on behalf of Colombian businessman Alex Saab, currently indicted with money laundering charges:

Fact check articles (2016-2023)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"Una cuña con cifras imprecisas, sin respaldo o descontextualizadas de Venezuela" [An ad with inaccurate, unsupported or decontextualized figures from Venezuela]. Cotejo.info. 26 November 2016.
"¿Será verdad lo dicho por Maduro en la Memoria y Cuenta 2018?" [Is what Maduro said in the 2018 Annual Report and Accounts be true?]. Cocuyo Chequea. 15 January 2019.
"¿El tren San Diego–Guacara está operativo?" [Is the San Diego-Guacara train operational?]. Es Paja. 20 February 2020.
"Engañoso: ¿Cabo Verde reconoció que orden de arresto de Alex Saab estaba a nombre de otra persona?" [Misleading: Did Cape Verde acknowledge that Alex Saab's arrest warrant was in someone else's name?]. Cazadores de Fake News. 24 July 2021.
"¿MUD y partidos del G4 "retiraron apoyo" a candidato Garrido en Barinas, como tituló Versión Final?" [MUD and G4 parties "withdrew support" to candidate Garrido in Barinas, as headlined by Versión Final?]. Es Paja. 7 January 2022.
"¿Simón Bolívar fue designado "el hombre más importante del siglo XIX" por la BBC?" [Simón Bolívar was named "the most important man of the 19th century" by the BBC]. Es Paja. 22 April 2022.
"Es falso que Simón Bolívar fue elegido como el hombre más importante de la historia por la BBC" [Es falso que Simón Bolívar fue elegido como el hombre más importante de la historia por la BBC]. Cotejo.info. 21 October 2022.
"El origen de la Operación de Influencia FreeAlexSaab" [The origin of the FreeAlexSaab Influence Operation]. Cazadores de Fake News. 27 November 2022.
"Anatomía de la operación de influencia a favor de Alex Saab" [Anatomy of the influence operation in favor of Alex Saab]. C-Informa. 16 December 2022.
"Portales de la mentira: cómo es el enjambre internacional de "medios independientes" al servicio de las narrativas chavistas" [Portals of lies: the international swarm of "independent media" at the service of chavista narratives]. C-Informa. 24 March 2023.
"¿El salario integral aumentó 546%, como informó el canal Patria en Telegram?" [Did the comprehensive salary increase 546%, as reported by the Patria channel on Telegram?]. Es Paja. 4 May 2023.

All in all, Correo del Orinoco cannot be considered a reliable source. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 (at least): This site is far, far worse than either Venezuelanalysis and Telesur; it is basically a version of them that doesn't even attempt to mix in any respectable reporting or analysis. It is essentially an aggregation site for kooks and conspiracists. On the current frontpage there is content syndicated from Grayzone and Al-Mayadeen for example. I don't think it's necessarily worth deprecating, but we wouldn't lose anything by never using it ever. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 1) like any other source, its "reliability in context" is what matters. Checking the first article of the 92 pages that it's used in, I see no reason to believe that what is attributed to an official document would be unreliable or made-up. A quick search for the "Official Gazette No. 39,454" brings up this source, which confirms that Bashar al Assad was indeed a recipient of the "Order of the Liberator". Without the crucial information that is listed in the first source, it would be near impossible to verify this simple fact. 2) I didn't ask for this RfC in particular. What I did ask is for the OP to stop removing all the sources that are associated with the Venezuelan government (including government official websites) and instead, to discuss them on this board. M.Bitton (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's "near impossible to verify a simple fact" without using Venezuela state sources, the fact is probably undue. And I find it hard to believe that for chavismo to install what was once Venezuela's highest honor on someone of the "caliber" of Bashar al-Assad is not mentioned elsewhere. So. Here are just a few sources that will provide some context and relevance: [119][120] [121] [122] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy into the UNDUE when it comes to simple facts such as this one (numerous first class imbeciles have decorations of all kinds listed in their article) and in any case, that example was given to illustrate a point. M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Venezuelan government has lied even about its own official documents in the past. Since we're talking about Venezuela's Official Gazette, the Foreign Affairs Ministry claimed that Colombian business had been appointed as a diplomat (special envoy) in the Official Gazette N° 6.373 Extraordinary. It required lawyers from Saab's current trial in the United States to look after the original document in the Library of Congress (a third and independent source) to demonstrate that this was false, and said appointment never took place. Correo del Orinoco continues repeating this false information ad nauseam, even after a year it has been debunked and published by fact checkers. As Sandy has mentioned, if a fact is relevant enough, it will surely be covered in independent sources. In the case of Assad's condecoration, there are a couple (besides the ones above): Reuters, El País, Chicago Tribune, La Nación.

I started the RfC on Correo del Orinoco because it was the last source whose reliability I disputed, and it also had more uses than Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias (26 uses

, as of this date), but both sources are part of Bolivarian Communication and Information System media conglomerate, just as the deprecated WP:TELESUR, and routinely publish each others' news (something that I explained in a comment linked in the edit summaries but that you refused to read, saying that it was "an irrelevant discussion"). Most of these issues affect the other outlets in question as a result. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the other governments don't lie? What Sandy said doesn't hold much water: if a list is DUE, then so is every factual entry in it. M.Bitton (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, that's whataboutism and clearly not what I said. Second, it's a response to your claim saying I see no reason to believe that what is attributed to an official document would be unreliable or made-up, giving an example where it happened. Plenty of reliable sources can be found about these documents and are more credible about its content (and especially its interpretation). --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not and what I said is not a claim, it's statement. If the info is verifiable and plenty of reliable sources can easily be found to support it, then why did you obliterate it? M.Bitton (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with M.Bitton that NoonIcarus was probably wrong to remove the fact about Assad's honour from his BLP; it would have been better to flag with "unreliable inline" or "better source" so other editors could verify and insert alternative sources. But that's an issue with how generally unreliable sources are dealt with, not an argument against the general unreliability of this source. (If the source was deprecated, then full removal would be the correct thing to do of course.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have treated the source in the same way as Telesur, as they both have the same editorial line and are part of the Bolivarian Communication and Information System conglomerate. Of course, I'm well aware that these removals can be disputed, and hopefully this RfC can help clearing that out. I only included Option 3 as an option given that I know there have been complaints about deprecating a source during its first discussion, but giving the precedents and evidence I think it is the right decision. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bobfrombrockley, the "at least" is key. Wherever Venezuelanalysis ends up, this is worse. [123] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4: Just another propaganda & fake news outlet serving the interests of a dictatorship. Tradedia^talk 19:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4: Venezuela is notorious for its low level of freedom of the media. This is a state-owned company, which is most likely just there to satisfy the interests of the dictatorship in charge. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Al Jazeera - 2023

According to WP:RSPSS, the last discussion was on 2020. From reading the material in the discussions and supplementary material in different ones that refer to Al-Jazeera, it seems like the current consensus is that although biased in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Al-Jazeera is "generally reliable". The owner being Qatar (which directly funds a side in the conflict) according to the guidelines does not change the reliability of the source (although in other sources the person running it does change the consensus for some reason).

I've seen some maps for example of Hebron published by Al-Jazeera, which were "exaggerated" to say the least, or showing a completely one sided picture ignoring history, but what brought me here was the quickness of their conclusions regarding the al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion.

During their coverage [124], Al-Jazeera made pretty bold claims.

First of all, in large portions of their links, they state things as facts, e.g.

You can also read more about the deadly Israeli bombing of a hospital in Gaza City here and see photos of the aftermath of the attack here.

Second of all, they add the personal stories of course in order to encourage a certain narrative, while once again, stating the "facts":

The Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital not only treated the many wounded in Gaza, it also sheltered people ordered by Israel to flee the north to “save themselves”. Thousands of children, women and the elderly believed they would be safe. But an Israeli air attack shattered that notion, killing at least 500 people and wounding hundreds more in what is widely being described as a massacre. The hospital was engulfed in flames with mutilated bodies scattered among the destruction – many of the victims little kids.

Lastly, they add their own "investigation":

Al Jazeera’s digital investigative unit has pinpointed the exact moment of the deadly attack through video analysis.

There is only one problem. The majority of RSes right now, agree that the attack might have never happened. A discussion is happening right now at Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion.

As a person who is extremely familiar with the conflict, and studied it extensively for years, I already know that Al-Jazeera is many times dubious at best (and extremely opinionated), but seeing it with a green check-mark indicating that its investigations of what looks like an invisible attack might mistakenly count as reliable, is rather far fetched.

They have later reported that a large number of countries and bodies investigated and concluded otherwise, but it seems as if they first take a side of the conflict as a sole source of truth (Gaza health ministry, run by Hamas, of dubious reliability), bolstering it with emotional view, adding investigations for things that might have never happened, and later reporting on the aftermath, of what might be their formation:

The fallout from the air strike continues, with dozens of demonstrations in the region. Protests outside Israeli, US and French embassies immediately erupted in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Tunisia.

I'm not aware of any correction made by Al-Jazeera of the subject, although I might be mistaken.

I'm also not entirely sure about their reliability in other fields, but that's where my expertise ends, and I cannot attempt to deduct either way. I do know the DOJ ordered Al-Jazeera to register as a foreign agent of the government of Qatar, noting that the company’s style guide “reveals AJ+’s intention to influence audience attitudes with its reporting” and noted that its journalism count as "political activities" even if it views itself as "balanced".[125]

I know it is a highly contentious topic, and for that reason I propose changing the green-checkmark to a warning (adding the reasoning in the appropriate description), and nothing more than that. Bar Harel (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A source can be generally reliable and still make mistakes, so long as they retract mistakes and issue corrections. We've seen that with the New York Times and other agencies who made the same mistake; the fact that we haven't seen that with Al Jazeera, who still has stories like Outrage spreads across Middle East after attack on Gaza hospital up, which says ...show their outrage in the aftermath of a deadly Israeli air attack on the Al-Ahli al-Arabi Hospital in Gaza, raises significant concerns about their reliability in this topic area.

This article was also published after Israel claimed it wasn't responsible; it even mentions that, saying Israel has denied responsibility for the attack. The fact that they continued blaming Israel in their own voice with no evidence despite Israel claiming that it wasn't responsible amplifies these concerns.

At the moment, we consider Al Jazeera generally reliable for all topics, with the note Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. I don't think this assessment is correct anymore; I suggest we continue considering Al Jazeera reliable generally, but within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area we asess it as "additional considerations apply", to give space for editors to properly evaluate their reliablility for specific claims. BilledMammal (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly isn't great, but status as an WP:RS is based on a source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it's not appropriate to change a source's status over one event until / unless there's significant secondary coverage showing that that event has significantly impacted their reputation. --Aquillion (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the first time such things happened. Even if we leave the DOJ or the video and the corresponding report I've attached here - within Wikipedia itself we've previously stated it is biased within the conflict. It just adds more and more evidence that the bias is so strong to the point that the accuracy or reliability can be questioned. Bar Harel (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s not the first time, can we see some more examples? Downgrading a source should be based on a pattern of behaviour rather than a single incident - especially a recent incident. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The video I've posted is from a few months ago. The DOJ is from 2020, and the Wikipedia discussions are from what seems like years of discussions, with the final conclusion that it is biased in the conflict, as written on the WP:RSPSS. The downgrade of course is only relevant to the AI conflict.

It's not new that it's partisan, we state it ourselves. Here I provide just another problem with the reliability, due to it being partisan. Bar Harel (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the key point is the source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. "Here's some stuff they got wrong" (or even "here's some stuff that we can all agree they definitely got wrong) isn't a strong argument. The strongest argument is secondary coverage from high-quality sources discussing how reliable the source is. Al-Jazeera is a high-profile enough source that it should be easy to find secondary coverage of it. I'm just not seeing that in current coverage, which looks like [126][127][128][129]. That's reasonable WP:USEBYOTHERS and I feel we'd need more than a list of articles editors here take issue with to change their status in the face of that. Basically, if these things are significant enough to impact Al-Jazeera's reputation, there ought to be secondary coverage demonstrating that. --Aquillion (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what Bharel means by "The majority of RSes right now, agree that the attack might have never happened." Everyone agrees the explosion happened (there are small craters and dead bodies to prove it happened). The question is one of who caused it to happen.VR _talk 05:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the RSes agree that the "Israeli airstrike" never happened. Bar Harel (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of RS actually agree that a conclusive determination is not possible. Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with BilledMammal. A single event doesn't change a sources reliablity, but given the specifics "additional considerations" should be strengthened for the conflict area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with BilledMammal. I think many of us remember weapons of mass destruction that never existed and were an excuse for a war to make a bunch of money for some corporatisations. TarnishedPath^talk 23:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would we say "additional considerations" in regards to NYT when it comes to US Foreign Policy given the weapons of mass destruction which clearly didn't exist? TarnishedPath^talk 23:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Unreliable (especially in Israel-Palestine conflict). Al Jazeera is state owned. It's owned by the Qatari Government. Qatar is not considered a free country with freedom of press [Freedom House]. Qatar is known to have favorable relations to organizations such as Hamas, Qatar funded Hamas for multiple years.[130] [131][132] Therefore, one must assume that one cannot trust a state owned newspaper in a topic that it's owner (The Qatari Government) has a clear interest.[133] [134][135] Jazeera is also a significant soft power asset of Qatar.[136]

In topics in which the Qatari government has of a less clear interest. One can assume it's commentary is more reliable, yet still ought to be read with warning. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State owned or otherwise, it's reliable (especially in Israel-Palestine conflict) and will remain so until proven otherwise. M.Bitton (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Unreliable: @Bharel has made some very valid points. Have seen Al Jazeera making dubious claims. There have been various studies suggesting that. Would either mark the outlet as State Sponsored outlet or an Unreliable Source. SpunkyGeek (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable for Middle East, generally reliable for other regions For instance, their coverage of RUSUKR often adheres to higher journalistic standards than many Western outlets.

To be clear, this discussion is just about the English-language version, right? I know almost nothing about the original Arabic edition.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've also made a somewhat bold, non-substantive change to RSP mentioning that Al Jazeera is state-owned, in line with the descriptions of other outlets like Deutsche Welle. Most people not familiar with the Middle East (and Al Jazeera is increasingly used for worldwide topics) don't know that. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AJ does not only report on the AI conflict. The current entry says "Some editors say" for a reason (slightly different wording but similar background for Amnesty). An RFC will be required to show that there is a consensus among editors for something else, "many editors" for example, or a "warning" which will merely be used to argue against AJ reporting at every turn. Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think adding a warning or "additional considerations" is relevant, but with the specifics of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I don't know if it's reliable or not in other areas (haven't really consumed Al-Jazeera for other information).

Of course it will be used to argue against AJ reporting (specifically on contentious topics within the AI conflict), but if AJ reports incorrect (or at least unknown) information as a fact, then arguing against AJ reporting is rather valid unfortunately. Bar Harel (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Making honest mistakes and correcting them is one thing. But publishing lies to promote a political case (that is what had happened here) is something entirely different. So, yes, I agree with the original posting on the top of the thread: not only this source is biased, but it is also not particularly reliable, at least based on the example provided. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, AJ is definitely a biased source, which is not a problem per se. We can use biased sources. But the problem in this specific example is that they widely published incorrect or at least strongly exaggerated claims to support their bias. I think this is rather problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, I am saying this is a generally unreliable source for factual information about the Arab-Israeli conflict - at least based on the example provided. It does not mean it can not be used in this area. And it well could be an RS on other subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RSN is not the appropriate venue in which to wage the geopolitical battle de-jour. AJ is generally reliable, that doesn't mean that they're sacred or infallible... It means that they're generally reliable. The generally agreed upon point is that there has never been either a long form journalistic or academic article without a single error (even if those errors can only be determined in hindsight) in the history of the world. Perfection is not the standard, generally reliable is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So that is why news sources send corrections [137][138]. In this case for example, not only corrections are not sent, but there's more and more one-sided reporting [139], without any factual checks on other claims. When a news agency reports an "investigation" on one side, but doesn't investigate different claims while reporting them as truth, the reliability becomes questionable. Bar Harel (talk) 03:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't... You're bludgeoning and abandoning impartiality. Stop. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, after I raised BLUDGEON Bharel committed to not responding anymore and has kept that up, so lets chalk that up to being unfamiliar with our processes and let it go. nableezy - 16:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is my mistake, I did not see that you had already admonished them for that. Did not mean to dogpile. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out a bit. Unless there is a lot of context about OP that I’m not aware of, that was slightly out of line.

If this does go to RfC, it won't be just about ARBPIA. OP makes a valid point about three years having passed. A lot has happened in the world since then.

On RUSUKR talk pages, where even the most partisan editors usually have little personal stake, we are generally very civil to each other, at least superficially.

I don’t really want to see AJ go yellow on the list. But I’d be willing to support stronger disclaimers about the Middle East.

If I can make time, I want to examine, in detail, their coverage of Yemen and other non-Israel-related regional conflict zones.

Lastly, do you really expect Qatari state-owned media to be impartial about Hamas? I don't think anyone else does.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is absurd that people are attempting to redefine reliability and npov as "agrees with the sources I like" and "agrees with the POV I espouse". Al-Jazeera is widely cited among other reliable sources, they are one of the very few press agencies that even has reporters in Gaza, and they make corrections as needed. And it is absurd that sources that peddled claims that were never retracted despite the evidence (eg this) are continued to be used without question, but one of the very few Arab-based sources is repeatedly challenged. Al-Jazeera remains a reliable news source with a reputation for fact-checking and it remains widely cited in other sources, the entirety of the complaint is a dislike of their reporting. nableezy - 17:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So according to you, the factual issues provided here are a "dislike of their reporting", and their biased inaccuracies are because they "don't agree with my view" and with the rest of the views on this board?
Giving examples that other unreliable sources exist, does not make Al-Jazeera reliable. Bar Harel (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dont believe I said that, no. Also, please see WP:BLUDGEON. You have now responded to everybody who has disagreed with you. nableezy - 03:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. You have said that the entirety of my complaint is a dislike of their reporting, and that AJ-Arabic has that notice but the report is not on AJ-Arabic.

I will refrain from WP:BLUDGEON. Bar Harel (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless anybody can demonstrate that this is a systematic issue with Al Jazeera's English language coverage of this conflict, then I don't think anything should change for now. I agree with the RSP warning that Al-Jazeera Arabic is more biased than the English-language coverage, which is endorsed by the BBC [140]:
Al Jazeera English is known to audiences worldwide for its varied coverage, which often sheds light on underreported stories. But its reporting - which only occasionally hints at the affiliations of its Qatari owners - comes in stark contrast to Al Jazeera Arabic. AJA's obvious stance on key regional crises and rivalries heavily colours its output. Its friendly coverage of Islamist groups - particularly favouring those aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood - came to the fore particularly with the 2011 uprisings in the region. Some of its correspondents have adopted a still harder line. In 2015, prominent anchor Ahmed Mansour offered a sympathetic account of the activities of al-Qaeda's Syria affiliate in a lengthy interview with its leader. Since a major rift between Gulf states erupted in 2017, AJA's coverage has also shifted closer to Iran.
Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do think we might want to distinguish between Al-Jazeera English and Al-Jazeera Arabic, if the sources make that distinction. --Aquillion (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already do. From RSP: Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict nableezy - 22:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors and dubious sources also accuse the BBC of taking sides. M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't even know Arabic. This entire report showing reliability issues is about Al-Jazeera in English. Bar Harel (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder this board is for discussing the reliability of sources, it's not for discussing other editors or their possible motives. Other boards are available if those discussions are to take place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable. I don't see anything here that would suggest that Al Jazeera (English and Arabic) is not generally reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable by our standards. Also, the demands of NPOV require us to use sources that provide a variety of viewpoints on contentious subjects. Note that a large number of Israeli news sources are used all the time, even some in the extreme right wing, and some balance is needed. Zero^talk 23:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between a different viewpoint, and a problem with inaccuracies as written here.

We have plenty of news sources on the RS board, showing a variety of opinions. When the news source goes beyond just showing an opinion, to a point where it publishes inaccurate information in what looks like an attempt to garner political influence, it is marked with "additional considerations apply". It is even more problematic when the mistakes were never corrected. Bar Harel (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also don't see anything that would make Al Jazeera less reliable here, especially since we already have the note about bias regarding Israel. This is a pretty reasonable case for bias, but interpreting ambiguous facts in an uncharitable way for Israel is not a case for unreliability as to what the facts are. Loki (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We note the bias particularly in AJ-Arabic. I don't even know Arabic. This is Al-Jazeera in English.

Interpreting ambiguous data is fine, but there is no notion of ambiguity, unlike the majority of other reliable sources. There's a notion that the interpretation is the sole truth, and is provided as fact.

Even when some other sources realized that they reported without much fact checking, they sent corrections as a reliable source does.[141] Al-Jazeera is giving here a prime example of what a reliable source is not supposed to do. Bar Harel (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable. The fake news they promoted to drive street demonstrations on the hospital explosion is not an isolated incident. As Karim Pourhamzavi and Philip Pherguson point out in this media research publication: "The results indicate that, on foreign policy issues which the Qatari elite regards as particularly important, the network promotes the perspectives of the state. The relationship between the Qatari state and Al-Jazeera also constrains the network's independence and objectivity". On anything the Qatari state is involved with, the Al-Jazeera distorts to fit the state view. It is the same as RT (TV network). Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That paper is specifically about Al Jazeera Arabic. nableezy - 12:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable of course. This discussion is obviously born out of Al Jazeera's offering of a contrarian position to that of Western media in the current, ongoing conflict - when it is actually an especially good thing for NPOV and the world to have a range of sources. This isn't a 'the nail that sticks out must get hammered down'-type situation. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally unreliable That what's Arab governments says about Al Jazeera:

Egypt blocks 21 websites for 'terrorism' and 'fake news' - Egypt has banned 21 websites, including the main website of Qatar-based Al Jazeera television and prominent local independent news site Mada Masr, accusing them of supporting terrorism and spreading false news.
Al Jazeera blocked by Saudi Arabia, Qatar blames fake news - Al Jazeera has been blocked in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Egypt arrests Al-Jazeera producer on fake news charge - Hussein was being held on charges of “incitement against state institutions and broadcasting false news with the aim of spreading chaos.”
Why Malaysia Is Angry With an Al Jazeera Documentary on Undocumented Migrants - The Malaysian government reacted very strongly to the allegations, calling them baseless and sought an apology from the Qatari TV news network.
Aljazeera spreads fake news over Al Arabiya UK operations

Ovedc (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar diplomatic crisis much? Saudi Arabia and Egypt, among other countries, had a major conflict with Qatar that included the demand to close Al Jazeera. Plus the Malaysian government pushing back against criticism... starship .paint (RUN) 13:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's that got to do with the reliability of Al Jazeera? M.Bitton (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, did somebody really cite the [Committe to Protect Journalists saying that Egypt (that bastion of an honest and free press) arrested an al-Jazeera reporter on saying “Egyptian authorities are waging a systematic campaign against Al-Jazeera, consisting of arbitrary arrest, censorship, and systematic harassment,” said Sherif Mansour, CPJ’s Middle East and North Africa program coordinator. “Egypt must release Mahmoud Hussein immediately and ends its crackdown on the press.” as evidence that al-Jazeera is unreliable? Wild lol. nableezy - 13:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a formal RFC, "!votes" are unnecessary, if someone wants to open an RFC to see if the consensus has changed, go ahead and do that but based on the above, I am not seeing much appetite for it.Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, an RFC is likely to result in the exact same outcome as is currently listed at WP:RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable does not mean always reliable. The evidence shown is neither voluminous enough or strong enough to degrade the general rating of this source, given the murkiness that comes with war. starship .paint (RUN) 13:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, ~~3/3~~ (6/6 now) Hebrew Wikipedia editors having a similar opinion? starship .paint (RUN) 14:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the reliability of the source, not other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Idk, they have a point, this is just turning into a parade of pro Israeli editors asserting generally unreliable. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe but any disruptive editting can be reported elsewhere. Adding fuel to a fire doesn't help anyone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested: - within the last two weeks, an experienced and persistent sockmaster [142] [143] [144] improperly canvassed over 190 editors [145] to an AFD in this topic area. As a result I am left more suspicious than usual. There's even a suspected sockpuppet who participated below, I hope that this suspicion is false, of course. starship .paint (RUN) 00:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hazard a guess that this thread has attracted some sleepers, but this is neither WP:SPI or WP:ANI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally Reliable with Conditional Notes: Per [146] there "Mixed for factual reporting due to failed fact checks that were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias that favors Qatar." Al-Jazeera is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for Due to direct ownership by Qatar and extreme editorial bias , including being subject to Qatari laws that bar any criticism on the government. It should be considered a partisan source in topics related to Qatar, The Arab/Israeli conflict, and Minorities of India, and its statements should be attributed in such cases. Editors may on occasion wish to use wording more neutral than that used by Al-Jazeera in topics related to these areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marokwitz (talk • contribs)
Not certain but I think we don't actually use MBFC for RS assessments. Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do not, it is generally unreliable for being self-published. nableezy - 15:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we used MBFC, most of the western media outlets would qualify as highly unreliable for certain subjects (that you can guess). M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure why minorities in India is mentioned here. There don’t seem to be any reports of unreliability on this topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley A quick search on Google shows that India also bans them from time to time on reliability issues.^[1] Not sure why minorities specifically, but they seem to get banned on and off from a large amount of countries. Bar Harel (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
India has been giving Wikipedia grief over maps too. The reason is that the Indian government makes maps showing de facto foreign control over territories it claims illegal. We shouldn't be downgrading Al Jazeera because it uses maps that accurately reflect reality. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia Interesting, I didn't know that, thanks. Regarding specifically the accuracy of Al-Jazeera maps, it was actually one of the complaints in this report up top. Bar Harel (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was somewhat wrong reading the Time article. In that case, Al Jazeera was banned for making the minor mistake of forgetting to include the Andaman Islands, and other minor islands and the somewhat more serious omission of the disputed borders in Kashmir in a handful of 2014 maps. Wikipedia has actually been threatened by the Indian government over maps that accurately depict the borders though. I don't think this a serious reason to dispute the reliability of its reporting. This sensitivity regarding maps is more to do with the Indian government rather than Al Jazeera. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's only India. I can check that, but the Hebron map I've linked above seems to be inaccurate, and from a quick look, I found some more map infographics, where the British Mandate is set at 1917 (before it existed) and the 1948-1967 section, where the "Palestinian Control" of the West Bank, was actually under Jordan (PA did not exist at the time). Bar Harel (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying my statement regarding Al-Jazeera being unreliable on India minorities related matters, specifically Hindu/Muslim. In one example, on November 6th, 2017, Al Jazeera published an article titled “The forgotten massacre that ignited the Kashmir dispute,” claiming that thousands of Muslims were killed in Jammu by paramilitary forces under Dogra ruler Hari Singh's command. However, the picture accompanying the article was misleadingly taken from an unrelated event, depicting a family from Amritsar relocating to Lahore, having no connection to Jammu and Kashmir. . See also [147] and [148] Marokwitz (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This source gives another view and mentions the fact that India also banned India: The Modi Question (for the same reasons). M.Bitton (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable. Qatari state-propaganda. At this point no different than RT for Russia-related news.Dovidroth (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally Unreliable Pertaining to Arab-Israeli conflict AJ (and especially their video outlet AJ+) let’s some wildly dubious, biased, and - at times - manipulative - reporting slip through the cracks far more often than any media observer would feel comfortable with. In my experience it is often subtle and doesn’t show steady consistency, so it’s very hard to call this and claim they are generally unreliable, as opposed to occasionally unreliable (also whether in general nor just on certain subjects)

Doing more research on my end before I cast any final opinion on this, but submitting this report for editor review/consideration in terms of AJ bias/reliability: https://www.arab-reform.net/publication/framing-whats-breaking-empirical-analysis-of-al-jazeera-and-al-arabiya-twitter-coverage-of-gaza-israel-conflict/ Mistamystery (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally unreliable. Arab countries, and other non-"western" countries have been toying and influencing this network according to their interests, banning and un-banning again and again, while demanding the network to improve the bias towards them. This network cannot be trusted and is not a reliable source. Few examples:

Robert Booth. "WikiLeaks cables claim al-Jazeera changed coverage to suit Qatari foreign policy". The Guardian. Retrieved October 25, 2023.

Bangladesh: David Bergman and Tasneem Khalil (22 Mar 2019). "Bangladesh blocks access to Al Jazeera news website". Al Jazeera. Retrieved October 25, 2023.
Bahrain: "Why did Bahrain ban Al Jazeera from the GCC summit?". Https. Retrieved October 25, 2023.
Egypt:"Al Jazeera slams naming of its journalists on Egypt 'terror' list". Al Jazeera. 25 Jul 2023. Retrieved October 25, 2023.
Iraq: "Iraq shuts down Al Jazeera Baghdad bureau". Al Jazeera. 27 Apr 2016. Retrieved October 25, 2023.
Kuwait: Ciar Byrne. "Kuwait shuts down al-Jazeera bureau". The Guardian. Retrieved October 25, 2023.
Morocco: "Morocco bars al-Jazeera for 'unfair' coverage". The Guardian. Retrieved October 25, 2023.
Saudi Arabia: "Saudi Arabia bans Al Jazeera channels in hotels". Al Jazeera. 9 Jun 2017. Retrieved October 25, 2023.
Sudan: "Sudan bans al-Jazeera as pro-democracy demonstrations continue". The Guardian. Retrieved October 25, 2023.

and the list goes on an on... TaBaZzz (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Youve given a list of repressive regimes banning a press agency and are using that as evidence that the press agency is unreliable? This is getting surreal tbh. nableezy - 19:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If that's the standard, I guess we'd have to deprecate every news organization that Trump accuses of "FAKE NEWS!!!!. al-Jazeera is appropriately classified at RSP as a generally reliable newsorg with appropriate notes. Banks Irk (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oddly enough, they are even citing al-Jazeera as the agency reporting that they were banned. Guess they reliable for that news? nableezy - 19:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When noting "western world" sources, they are dismissed as biased. When noting repressive regimes toying on and off with AJ, they are dismissed. When citing Al-Jazeera itself, it is dismissed as well. So nothing is true for you? isn't there any truth somewhere, or would it be you to claim to be bearer of truth? TaBaZzz (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, what you cited above proves the exact opposite of what you're claiming. M.Bitton (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their self proclamation proves they are part of the interest and bias game themselves. Not a reliable source. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i suggest you read what has been said about the perceived bias and its irrelevance to the reliability assessment. M.Bitton (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does it do that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being a toy in the interests of (repressive) governments is by definition being unreliable.
Cherry-picking information is misleading the audiance. And being misleading is being unreliable.

TaBaZzz (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, being unreliable has a specific definition that does not apply to it. M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Questionable sources:

expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist - YES. as was shown by across this talk page.
promotional in nature - YES. Paid by Qatar and toyed by its interest and other countries interests.
sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - YES. They cherry-pick the information they publish in a way that mislead their audiance.
questionable business practices - YES. Paid by Qatar and toyed by its interest and other countries interests.

Therefore this network cannot be trusted and is not a reliable source. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Cherry-picking information is misleading the audiance." does that apply to this discussion as well? Because whether one agrees with it or not the OP here is full of cherry picking. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bharel: do you agree with TaBaZzz that "Cherry-picking information is misleading the audiance. And being misleading is being unreliable."? I imagine you strongly disagree given your argument's reliance on cherry picking information. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable except in matters related to Arab-Israeli conflict The concern regarding Al-Jazeera appears to be towards is standpoint on the Arab-Israeli conflict. It should be considered generally reliable on other subjects but should be attributed in controversial/disputed topics. Ecrusized (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only so-called "concerns" are about a perceived bias (by some editors), which even if proven to be factual would still have no impact whatsoever on the fact that Al Jazeera meets the normal requirements for reliable sources. M.Bitton (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable. I recall back to the Iraq War beginning in 2003-2004 in which Al Jazeera was far more "reliable" than the U.S. media which was a cheering squad for the war. Since then I've relied on Al Jazeeera to give a more in-depth view of events in the Middle East than the often simplistic treatment we see in the U.S. media. Smallchief (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable certainly as much as any other mainstream outlets are. I know I'd trust it at lot more than most other US mainstream sources on that topic. They might have a bias, but bias and unreliability are different things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable Almost by definition, a media outlet in a dictatorship, with virtually no freedom of press, is not reliable. It doesn't mean everything such media posts is false, but it makes in unreliable for any claim not reported elsewhere. As an additional comment, the WP:BLUDGEONING of some users in this very thread is concerning. Jeppiz (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable They have a long history of accuracy and I don't see how we could mark them as unreliable for some slight occasional bias and slip ups. If we were to apply that same logic to the New York Times in regards to weapons of mass destruction or US outlets in general for believing a lot of what the US establishment wants them to believe that serves US foreign interests then how many US outlets would we mark as unreliable? TarnishedPath^talk 00:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable Please don't bring nonsense political disputes to RSN. If we're going to be discussing the hospital as with the beginning of this section and OP, then where does the New York Times group putting out new analysis in the past 48 hours saying the explosive device came from the direction of Israel fit into things? It's precisely because of this evolution of new information over an ongoing event that previously considered reliable sources should not be brought here until after an event. Otherwise we'd be having a discussion as well right after Shireen Abu Akleh's murder where, if Al Jazeera said Israel was responsible, that they're unreliable because of that reporting. And, well, we know how that turned out. Hence why current events are not something that should be brought to RSN. Silver seren^C 00:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable It is a work that gets embroiled in political issues but its not the one creating the drama around, it is simply a matter of being a respected paper from the Middle East where there is a lot of politics at play. It tries to maintain itself above said conflicts. --Masem (t) 01:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict - Per the points that have been made. Way too partial to Hamas-controlled sources here without correction. -- Veggies (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again for those missing the memo, partiality is unrelated to reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is—are you kidding? That's why we've deprecated sources like Sputnik and RT. They're singularly deferential to a certain point of view and divorced completely from reality. I'm not arguing that Al-Jazeera should be deprecated. Simply that, as regards the Arab-Israeli conflict, they're demonstrably unreliable. -- Veggies (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you have demonstrated that, please let me know. Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable but could more strongly state the additional considerations applying to coverage of Israel-Palestine and of Saudi-Qatar conflict. Worth noting that the former includes the global spillover of the conflict in terms of Israel-related antisemitism: Al Jazeera Investigations documentaries about alleged an Israel lobby in the U.K. have been condemned as misleading and even antisemitic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To all the editors bold voting, and to reiterate Selfstudier earlier comment, this is a discussion not an RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As pointed by some editors above, this is a discussion not an RfC.

Al-Jazeera is a very popular Arab media outlet and generally reliable in news coverage, including in topics related to Israel-Palestine conflict. Al-Jazeera is regularly cited in other global media outlets as well as academic publications.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be an RfC... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion should be read as an additional substantial discussion which should be logged and linked in the third column at RSP, with the fourth column updated to 2023. So far, it clearly affirms previous consensus, but it might be sensible for an editor to tighten up the additional considerations mentioned in the final column at RSP. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
to tighten up the additional considerations mentioned in the final column at RSP "Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict." seems fine to me. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it high time that Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic were treated as the extremely distinct sources that they actually are? Having a blended entry for both is just a source of confusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When a network gets asked by a western governments to "tone it down" (euphemism for self-censorship), you can rest assured that whatever the network is doing is right. M.Bitton (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable and any mistakes or blatantly biased reporting coming from AJ are individual cases that correspond with frequency occurring in any other reliable source including the Washington Post or the New York Times.Makeandtoss (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable Much has been made about the reporting of the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital explosion and RS have been largely believing the IDF explanation of a Palestinian rocket. Only the recent NYTimes analysis indicates that the Palestinian rocket blew up two miles from the hospital and wasn't the cause. The cause is unknown. We shouldn't take the word of either side in the war and the mainstream press likely got it wrong.[149] O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it's clear that AJ has a bias and that it's influenced by the government of Qatar [150], its owner, one of the most repressive states on Earth and a friend of Hamas. On the other hand, I don't see many examples of the actual lack of reliability, which is the main question here. Their treatment of the Al-Ahli hospital strike indeed raises questions. They automatically accused Israel in the live feed [151]. Then they published an investigation that, while contradicting some of Israeli claims, does not accuse Israel of performing the strike. However, they haven't added any kind of disclaimer or note to the earlier coverage, which isn't supported even by their own investigation. I think that the RSP note should reflect this, perhaps advising against using their live updates. Alaexis_¿question? 16:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say people should be cautious in using live updates and other breaking announcements in general, from any news source, per WP:RSBREAKING. No strong opinion on whether this should be emphasised on the RSP entry and no comment on anything else. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: do we have research showing they are reliable with regards to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? There are the issues that we've brought here. There are plenty of more reliability issues in other countries where they banned and unbanned Al-Jazeera constantly. There's a Wikipedia page for controversies surrounding Al-Jazeera and its bias. Up until now, I haven't really seen sources that show that Al Jazeera is reliable with regards to the conflict. What are we basing the reliability on? I've searched, and found a single research article showing that Al-Jazeera viewers regard it as reliable, but that's not too helpful. I've seen research showing the bias and framing. I'd appreciate some research showing that it's reliable. Bar Harel (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is GR per prior discussions and the evidence presented in those except for "some editors" who think it isn't with regards to the IP conflict. If the question was being asked about the Jerusalem Post, there would probably be a different "some editors" who would consider it unreliable as regards the IP conflict. Do you have RS evidence that AJ is generally unreliable? Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never said AJ is generally unreliable, only presented problems with the English version about the IP conflict. I'll check the evidence in prior discussions. Bar Harel (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm a hard worker and accepted the challenge. I've read all of the past discussions in RSN - 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1, and came out quite frustrated. In the majority of them the reliability of Al Jazeera is disputed in one way or another, and in all of them (100%) the reason that Al-Jazeera is stated as a reliable source, is because "Al-Jazeera is a reliable source". That statement is sometimes given by blocked sockpuppets, sometimes given by users in this very conversation, reiterating "Al-Jazeera is a reliable source" or "widely regarded as a reliable source". There is only one reply presented with "evidence", and the sources they link to actually state that AJE fully adopted the Hamas humanitarian disaster framing and casualties’ strategy. It accepted without any questioning the Hamas causality figures and didn’t make any effort to investigate who were killed and wounded and under what circumstances.[152] (p.152), so even the very source presented actually questions the reliability regarding the conflict.

I've searched the web even more, and like I said, found a single article showing that Al Jazeera viewers regard it as reliable [153], and even there, they show the limitations of the study: Only age and Al-Jazeera reliance directly predicted credibility of the network and Our results suggested that Al-Jazeera users judged the network as highly credible. This study did not directly explore whether westerners who have viewed Al-Jazeera would differ in their judgments of credibility from those viewers in the Arab world. If viewers of a network regard it as reliable, it does not mean a network is reliable. They probably wouldn't have viewed it otherwise. In fact-checking websites, I see Al-Jazeera all over the place, sometimes as reliable, sometimes as not, almost always biased in the conflict. If you don't believe me, read the past discussions yourself please. Bar Harel (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a couple of people have already said, there is the option of a formal RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will call for the move of a formal RFC. The more I search about it, the more I find that it is systematic and widely covered:
The fiction they concocted - that Israeli snipers targeted Abu Akleh-suits Al Jazeera's general narrative and the one that the Qatar-owned broadcaster has been conveying about its veteran staffer in particular. To pepper the propaganda and make it even more internationally palatable, most reports of this nature highlight that Abu Akleh and her cohorts on the scene were wearing signs clearly marked "PRESS"on their protective vests.
— Blum, Ruthie. 2022. “The Workings of the Palestinian Propaganda Machine.”[154]

The more Al Jazeera courts controversy, the more attention it receives and the more viewers it attracts. This makes it doubtful that Al Jazeera genuinely wants to improve its reputation or alter what the public thinks of it
— Zayani, M. (2008). Arab media, corporate communications, and public relations: the case of Al Jazeera. Asian Journal of Communication, 18(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292980802207074

Al-Jazeera framed their pictorial coverage in a manner that aligned with their governments' interests in the crisis.
— Tayler J. The Faisal Factor. Atlantic Monthly (1993). 2004;294(4):41-43. Accessed October 29, 2023.

Our research results suggest a significant difference in news framing between TOI and AJE and indicate that these differences are statistically significant. The textual and visual analyses substantiated the validity of assumptions of biased coverage and showed that the two transnational news media were clearly ethnocentric in their news reporting on both textual and visual levels.
— DOUFESH, BELAL, and HOLGER BRIEL. “Ethnocentrism in Conflict News Coverage: A Multimodal Framing Analysis of the 2018 Gaza Protests in The Times of Israel and Al Jazeera.” International Journal of Communication (19328036) 15 (January 2021): 4230–51.

The bias and reliability issues shown are in Al-Jazeera English. Bar Harel (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you cite (p. 152) is from one chapter of the book on Al Jazeera; the chapter is called "An Israeli View" on AJE's coverage of the Gaza War (2008–2009). Though well-argued, its arguments are very much out of line with mainstream sources (like criticizing AJE's use of the term Israeli occupation as misleading because Israel withdrew). In the passage you quote, he doesn't only criticize Al Jazeera English, he also accuses human rights organizations, Palestinian, Israeli, and global, including, for example, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, as well as the UN, of being guilty of citing the false figures of Hamas, and criticizes the Goldstone report of being discredited and filled with fabricated facts, questionable testimonies, false accusations, and baseless conclusions and having already made up their mind even before the investigation started. These talking points are not accepted as true by mainstream experts. One of the footnotes it cites in support is NGO Monitor, a bad source. If you read the other chapters (including the "A Palestinian View" counterpoint) you'll find the overall report is rather positive about AJE, and this quoting is rather selective. Downgrading AJE would only create WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is our coverage. DFlhb (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its worse than that, the first one is an opinion piece by Ruthie Blum, a non-expert in media or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And CNN likewise concluded Abu Akleh was intentionally targeted. The last one shows that Israeli and Arab news sources have different perspectives. Shocking development, but why would that mean only the Arab one should be removed? nableezy - 14:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check the indentation (which is confusing due to bullet points); I'm referring to this source, quoted above as criticizing Al Jazeera English for adopting Hamas's so-called "casualties strategy". DFlhb (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DFlhb I purposefully added that source, as it was used in the previous discussion "showing" the credibility of AJE. I quoted the Israeli view, as for some reason it was completely omitted, claiming AJ is reliable. Showing only the other parts of the report isn't necessarily adding credibility.

Right now we have no claim in the RS page regarding the AJE bias, only about the arabic version, and consider it reliable for the IP conflict. If there are so many sources claiming there's bias in its reporting of the IP conflict, how can we ignore all of them? What do we base the reliability on?

@Nableezy Remember, my suggestion was to add an additional consideration notice, specifically about the IP conflict. There are plenty of sources showing the AJE bias, some of them further claiming it is not reliable. I, and other editors, have added an endless amount of citations, sources and evidence. So far I haven't seen sources claiming it is accurate or neutral on the conflict, apart from people stating "AJ is reliable" endlessly. I thought we like citations. Instead of bashing every source I bring, how about we'll add some that say it is reliable? None of our prior 10 (!!!) discussions have that (except that one reply). Even this very discussion has dozens of sources claiming Al-Jazeera is biased, some claiming it is unreliable, but none showing anything that gives a shred of hope that I might be wrong. How can we bring a statement in 10 discussions spanning over multiple years, making decisions based on it, and not back it up with any source - by simply claiming it's the truth? Is this how Wikipedia works and I didn't get the memo?

Look, I'm trying to stay as neutral as possible, but right now I'm facing with a huge amount of evidence to one side, and barely any to the other. I'm doing all the work searching for sources to both sides, and I'd appreciate the help. Replying "It's reliable" is not an argument, and honestly, so far it feels like an OR.

If you're claiming why would that mean only the Arab one should be removed? then I agree with you - let's do it on both then. Times of Israel is probably biased towards... Israel, in the PI conflict. Bring relevant sources and we'll write it accordingly. Bar Harel (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:OR "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

let's do it on both then first of all, there is no reason to do such a thing for any of them and second, should we decide to apply it for whatever reason, then it will be done for every single source out there (there will be no cherry picking or baseless comparisons). M.Bitton (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that we can't dismiss a source on the basis of allegations that are widely disputed by reliable sources (and that are also lobbed at the UN, HRW, Amnesty, and even "Israeli and global" human rights organizations). That chapter's whole point is to explore a partisan viewpoint. The rest of the book presents AJE as a proper journalistic outlet, which is our criteria for being "generally reliable". DFlhb (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DFlhb I would have agreed with you and would have preferred to close this discussion, but there are 5 others that I've added, with some actual research done, showing AJE is biased (and the thread started with additional evidence for the unreliability + DOJ reference). Other editors also added sources. The allegations are not based on a single book's chapter, and atm we're stating the bias only exists on AJ Arabic.Bar Harel (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli media, also traumatized by Hamas attack, become communicators of Israel’s message "But in wartime, Israeli media, like other components of Israeli society, set differences aside and rally behind the military leadership. Some critics who don’t are dubbed traitors. Coverage of the other side’s plight is kept to a bare minimum."

Should we now caveat all Israeli media based on this? No, because there is a presumption of reliability for major newsorgs (WP:NEWSORG "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact"), that includes AJ unless there is conclusive evidence of unreliability or until there is a consensus of editors that it is unreliable, neither of which is evident at the moment. Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really seen sources that show that Al Jazeera is reliable with regards to the conflict. Not sure what you are looking for. Do we even have any sources that show that any particular news outlet is reliable with regard to the I/P conflict? Meanwhile Al Jazeera reporting is in line with others on major events [155] e.g. According to Israeli officials, at least 1,400 people were killed in the attacks on southern Israel on October 7 starship .paint (RUN) 01:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera, I noticed: promoted Jackson Hinkle (an RT contributor who is a North Korea supporter, denies the Douma chemical attack, the Uyghur genocide, the Bucha massacre, the fact that genes exist... you get the picture) as a reliable source (see here, timestamp 1:47). They also contributed to the spread of misinformation by claiming that a photo of a dead infant released by the Israelis was AI-generated (see here). That claim, too, was originally spread by Hinkle (see here, here), and they cite him in their video. VintageVernacular (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mention two examples. The first, of "promoting" Hinkle, is them using a screenshot of a Hinkle tweet as B-roll footage to illustrate a video of a journalist debunking various claims. Hinkle's tweet is factually accurate, and the journalist never mentions Hinkle. They likely just looked for a popular tweet (that one had 10mil views) to illustrate a point. If we interpret that as promotion, we've about to declare a lot of news outlets unreliable.

Your second example, "AI-generated", was from Al Jazeera Arabic, and it's in a tweet; we would never have used it for those two reasons. DFlhb (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marked unreliable would be jumping the gun, I wouldn't have !voted that had this been an RfC. Currently I think it's yellow tier (in my books, that is). These incidents were just recent occurrences that worried me about their reliability, and I felt could use bringing up. Although I'd already been somewhat skeptical of them.

But: why would a Twitter post by a news org marked reliable by WP not be a valid citation? Many news orgs publish good reports through social media, especially YouTube but sometimes Twitter as well. There's no reason to consider those unreliable simply because they're there instead of the news org's site. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a good sign that they used Hinkle's tweet in their "fact check" video there, but it's not quite "promoting". I think this supports the idea we might need more stringent phrasing of our caveats in relation to Israel/Palestine, but doesn't suggest they should be demoted from generally reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They actually cited him as some sort of reliable source on their website, which I didn't know about before, simply referring to him as "[an] American journalist [who] soon discovered that it was a fake photo" in this recent article for their Bosnian edition. Is there some kind of exception carved out here for Al Jazeera English? I'm aware their coverage is significantly different between languages. VintageVernacular (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This does not support the idea we might need more stringent phrasing of our caveats in relation to Israel/Palestine until there is an RFc, no matter how many times that is repeated, it remains "some editors".... Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "until there is an RfC". RSP says This list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere on Wikipedia. This discussion - the most in-depth here for a decade I think - doesn't need to be a formal RfC for it to be registered in the summary in RSP. It seems to me that there is something slightly more here than "some editors say it is partisan": about 50% of editors here are saying that "additional considerations" or "general unreliability" should apply to its I/P coverage? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Open an RFC, so that the matter is widely advertised. That was how it was done to begin with and the editors here can comment there, that will serve to quantify what "some editors" means and if that has changed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't they if his tweet happens to be factually accurate? Don't we do the same thing (i.e., judge sources in context) or are we now expecting the secondary sources to check with us first? M.Bitton (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His tweet about the supposedly AI-generated photo was not factually accurate, as several sources I linked showed quite thoroughly. VintageVernacular (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the tweet that was used. M.Bitton (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was used by AJ Arabic here, where they describe Hinkle as an "expert". Another source they cite there is an anonymous post on 4chan. VintageVernacular (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact that they (the secondary source) can describe him however they wish and their analysis seems accurate to me (that's my opinion, others can have a different one), that's not what is being discussed here (see the link given by the OP) and Al Jazeera Arabic is another subject. M.Bitton (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you hold the opinion that a report citing repeat disinformation purveyors Jackson Hinkle, and 4chan, by a news org funded by a government with links to a major party in the war the report concerns, is accurate versus the multiple analyses by AI experts and fact checking websites... that's your right, too. But this is not in any way off-topic as you suggest. VintageVernacular (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about a Tweet that wasn't mentioned by the OP and in Arabic to boot is definitely off-topic. Of course it's my right (I don't have to believe parti pris experts). Incidentally, the Al Jazeera Tweet is about online propaganda (they even mention someone who tried to pass himself off as an Al Jazeera employee). I guess, this is what happens (the price to pay) when an information blackout is created. M.Bitton (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read my sources, you'd find that the company behind the AI detection tool (used by Hinkle) stated it was a false positive, and the creator of the puppy photo (which was reposted to 4chan by a self-proclaimed insider) stated that was the one that was the fake photo. Al Jazeera was unambiguously spreading misinformation. Even if they did so in Arabic, it is worth considering if only because they're owned by the same network; the fact that the exact same misinfo was posted to their Bosnian website indicates a possible wider issue. VintageVernacular (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Anyone can make a photo a post it without context (like they did). Until proven otherwise, that photo is simply fake (to millions of people who have no reason to believe otherwise and every reason not to trust anything coming from the side that holds all the cards). Like I said, creating an information blackout comes with a price tag. M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Al Jazeera is an invaluable source for factual reporting, analysis, and political opinions coming from some segments of the Arab world. It is one of the best sources at our disposal for this critical region of the world. Any suggestion that Al Jazeera should be labeled "generally unreliable" is absurd to the point of suggesting POV pushing. Unless we want to just come out and explicitly state in our policies that Wikipedia is an explicit reflection of Western points of view, the war against non-Western points of view has got to come to an end. Going after Al Jazeera is a bridge too far, and I'm glad to see that many editors agree. Obviously it should not be taken at face value if it's "debunking" corruption or abuse allegations against the Qatari government. Other than that, it should be used as much as possible. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again please keep your comment to the reliablity of the source, not other editors. If you believe other editors are behaving in a disruptive manner you have the option to report them to WP:ANI -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marginally reliable. Unreliable in Israel-Palestine conflict Softlem (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "India Suspends Al-Jazeera Broadcast Over Map Dispute". Time. 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2023-10-26.

Reliable but should be only be used with a second source for the Israel-Palestine conflict and other Quatar involved middle eastern conflicts based on ownership. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For international, nonpolitical items I would say Reliable but for things on local Arab & Middle East politics and especially the Israel/Palestine conflict I would be extremely careful. There's a lot of reporting that says it's getting pushed or threatened with banning if it doesn't follow authoritarian party lines from some of the Islamic-Nationalist-dominated countries and the reporting on Israel&Palestine shows that it's failed to correct reported false information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by USNavelObservatory (talk • contribs) 00:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)blocked sock/arbpia 30/500[reply]
Reliable with conditions that being not to use it for Qatari-government domestic issues. Given the nature of Israel Palestine, I'd be careful with that as well. Anything outside of it though is generally good in my view. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
The following was moved here from a duplicate section.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Al Jazeera is a Qatari-funded news organization which shows clear bias. I move to have them deprecated as a reliable news source Pburkart (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of unreliable reporting? Softlem (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is literally already a discussion up above on reliability and the general consensus definitely doesn't seem in agreement with you. Also, as has to seemingly be pointed out over and over again on RSN, bias has nothing to do with reliability. Silver seren^C 04:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information suppression and WP:RECENT Al Jazeera keeps doing what it has been doing all along and is something that is literally relied on quite heavily for all the years inbetween the major conflict flare-ups, and the timing of when RFCs and discussions occur on it is very telling. The fact is that there are not enough alternative sources in places like Gaza and Al Jazeera is the best we have, most certainly in the English language. It would be "easy" and "comfortable" for people to switch I feel, if suddenly Reuters and AP had the dozens/hundreds of boots on the ground in Gaza that it would take to be alternatives but this never happens even during the years in between the wars of Israel and Hamas. We need Al Jazeera to have as much English language information as we need to be usefully dealing with the subject in the English language Wikipedia, which is also relevant as it's the English language Wikipedia that is Wikipedia's "face" to the world at large generally. Al Jazeera English has repeatedly been awarded for its coverage in this highly contentious conflict area and I believe that is to their credit, they have already had the world's eyes scrutinize them quite heavily and the scrutiny has not abated. If there were true problems needing us to reduce our Al Jazeera usage, they would be writ large by other international sources because there have been those desperate to prove it for its entire existence. Sumstream (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional considerations apply/unreliable and non-independent for topics related to areas where the Qatari government has key interests - for example, the recent Men's World Cup and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Qatar is an autocratic state, and Al Jazeera lacks independence from that state; given this it would be unreasonable to consider it reliable and independent on topics that are considered key by that state.

Evidence for this goes back decades; for example, look at this 2013 article by the BBC, which explains that the website is a standard bearer for the Islamist movement. BilledMammal (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That 2013 BBC article is specifically about Al Jazeera Arabic, which is editorially separate from Al Jazeera English. See: The battle over the media is a key factor in the struggle for power in Egypt and almost every Arabic language channel viewed as sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood has long since been shut down. and Only Al-Jazeera has continued to deliver the Muslim Brotherhood point of view in Arabic. which a 2019 BBC story noted is much more partisan than Al Jazeera English [156]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: even if Al-Jazeera English was sympathetic to Islamists, that doesn't mean they are any more unreliable than a source that is sympathetic towards Zionists, or any other political group. See WP:POVSOURCE.VR _talk 05:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

generally reliable : According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. I will post more of my thoughts later. Very busy rn.Gsgdd (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable, including on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Al-Jazeera is among the few news organizations with reporters on the ground interviewing witnesses etc. Also see list of List of awards awarded to Al Jazeera English. I want to remind everyone that it still has not been conclusively established who caused the Al-Ahli Hospital explosion.VR _talk 05:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it has not been conclusively established, except by Al Jazeera, which claimed without doubt, in multiple instances, and according to their "investigations" that one side caused it, per the exscripts brought above. Bar Harel (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep chewing on this solitary bone, this does not make AJ unreliable. Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a possible alternative -- a specific topic concern might do better to ask about adding a note in their RSP entry on that specific topic, not for a generic and broad "Generally reliable" vs "Unreliable". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is PCMag a reliable source?

What is the reliability of PCMag?

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

Equal width (C) 05:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What context you have in mind? I use PCMag as a source for articles about old hardware/software from 1980s/1990s, in that case it is a reliable source. Are there some recent issues we should be aware of? General reliability questions like this aren't much helpful. Pavlor (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an actual live issue? Where are you thinking of its use and how? - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid question: This question needs a lot more context. Like David said, historically it was a very good source for computer information. Is it still a good source? Perhaps but in what context are you proposing/objecting to it's use. Please note that we should never start the discussion of a source with the RfC style options. That should be reserved for sources that have been discussed significantly in the past. Instead, for source that normally aren't discussed here the question should be raised with a specific use example. Springee (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on context of what specifically is being cited for what specific article content. One couldn't cite them for medical advice for example, and information in a 1991 article may have become outdated. And I'd really like a link to what prior discussion was not resolved so it needed to come to this RFC for conflict resolution. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Independent

I'm not really asking for your opinion though it is welcome, I just need something to link to while I wipe references to this trash: https://washingtonindependent.com/.
The name makes it sound like something reliable. And their logo uses the Chomsky font, so it MUST be good!

No editorial policy
Best Altcoins To Buy - Five Altcoins To Grow Your In October 2023 (yes the title says "Grow Your In"): "In this article, we'll explore the top 5 altcoins to buy in October 2023 to get 20x portfolio growth." Hard pass
"Join oil mastery and experience trading at its finest and to make sure that new users have the best trading experience from day one." (the words "oil mastery" link to some garbage)
While the writers are named I don't think any of them has experience as a journalist. There's a real estate agent, a "freelance writer and social media manager", a.. umm.. "assist organisations in disrupting the status quo of transition", a musician.. no idea if these people even exist and honestly I don't care.
[157]: "You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook." The name of the Twitter account is "internets" and has no tweets, the FB account is private.
https://web.archive.org/web/20211203171355/https://washingtonindependent.com/best-online-casinos-in-the-usa-right-now/
[158] claims to have been published on Dec 20, 1996 and updated Jul 08, 2021. Supposedly written by "Stefano Mclaughlin". Look at the page today and it's the same text but published Oct 09, 2023 by Susan Murillo.

So now I can link this section when I wipe this reference from articles. Note that other publications with the same name (used to?) exist which may or may not be reliable. But this one isn't. Back in 2009 it was something different entirely: [159], see Washington Independent for what used to be at this domain. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be quite that fast. One of the former publications of what is now the American Independent Institute, was the Washington Independent, which was then run by experienced journalists. Not sure at this point that the site being cited is the same or not. Banks Irk (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Banks Irk, per my last edit the site looked very different (and better) in 2009. The current site is just garbage. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me that there might be a cutoff date where articles from the source before that date are usable, and articles after that date are not. But, I agree that there is nothing about the current site which comes close to qualifying as a reliable source. Banks Irk (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Banks Irk, to make matters more complicated: https://web.archive.org/web/20091219163640/http://washingtonindependent.com/55152/cato-institute-finds-180-billion-benefit-to-legalizing-illegal-immigrants "By Daphne Eviatar 8/14/09 3:31 PM". In October 2013 it's the same. Then there are no snapshots for 7 years and around 2020-2021 we see things like [160]. The text is the same but this article is "Last updated: July 31, 2020 | August 14, 2009 | Pooja Bean". In 2022 the article was written by Ismaeel Delgado and still "Last updated: Jul 31, 2020 | Aug 14, 2009".
My money is on republished articles from the original site being copyright infringements. You'll find some good-looking content on the current site, and it shouldn't be used as a reference here. Only archived pages. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd have a look at one of their articles and who wrote it. The author was William Willis, it's laughably bad even if she does have six years of writing experience (I have a suspicion it's fake and written by ai). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, LinkedIn tells me that it was a startup in 2005 and its only recorded editor stopped working there in 2010. Uncle G (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NewsClick (Indian Online news portal)

NewsClick : The New York Times has reported that Indian news portal NewsClick is implicated in an investigation linking it to a network funded by US millionaire Neville Roy Singham, accused of promoting Chinese propaganda. The allegations against NewsClick were initially raised by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in 2021 during a search of the portal's premises as part of a probe into alleged foreign remittances.

Please review the attached links:

NYT Report

Chinese funding

The news outlet is under serious allegations and has biased reporting as suggested by neutral observers.

It should be either deprecated or termed as Generally Unreliable unless proven otherwise. SpunkyGeek (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is premature to commence a discussion regarding deprecation per the instructions at the top of this page. While the source is referenced in a couple hundred articles for one purpose or another, there have not been several prior discussions of the source at RSN. One discussion was started here, but closed after the single comment that biased sources can still be reliable.

Is there a live actual dispute over the reliability of a specific reference to this source for a specific statement in a specific Wikipedia article? Banks Irk (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

enca.com

enca.com
eNCA (enca.com) is a 24-hours television news channel owned by e.tv, it is primarily laser focused on African stories and it is arguably South Africa's most watched/viewed news feed. It is cited on hundreds of Wikipedia articles. I am here seeking help to assess it's reliability. dxneo (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific question about the source's reliability in the context of a specific citation for a specific statement in a specific article? Banks Irk (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Banks Irk, concerned about linkrot like what happened here but once I used the IABot link was rescued, I think it might have happened in other articles that cites the site also. dxneo (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand the issue. Is there a question about reliability once you've solved the linkrot issue? Banks Irk (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References in Sacking of Burhanpur (1681)

I recently discovered that the cited reference for the article "Sacking of Burhanpur (1681)" is untraceable, neither on Google Books nor in my usual sources for article references. Can we consider the source 'Bahekar, S.A. (1999). Martiyar Sambhaji. Jalgaon: Kasab Publications' reliable? Ajayraj890 (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I can't find any mention of the book, the author or the publisher anywhere on the interwebs other than at Wikipedia or various mirrors. The article talkpage says that there is at least one other book that characterizes this source as "scholarly", that author appears to be a historian who has written a number of books on Indian history. That might be good enough; a source doesn't need to be available online to be reliable and verifiable. There are still libraries. But, I still have no idea whether the publisher is simply small and obscure with no online presence or if the reference is self-published. I suppose you could ask User:Charvak157 to provide some additional information on the book and author. He wrote Sacking of Burhanpur (1681), and also mentioned the source at Talk:Sambhaji/Archive_2#Sambhaji_-_old_references_vs_new_references, though he hasn't posted at Wikipedia in roughly a year. Banks Irk (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nor can I. I suppose bonadea may recall where they found the literature review mentioned at talk:Sacking of Burhanpur (1681), but it was three years ago so I'm not optimistic. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dendy Media

This company appears to be a straight PR company where one can pay to get a "story" featured on various websites. My opinion is that any story provided by this company, regardless of the webhost that published it, is not a reliable source. At issue is my removal of this source and the associated text from Elisa Jordana, which appears to be a vanity article. That removal was mentioned by an editor in the current deletion discussion. I'd appreciate the thoughts of any editors that are experts about reliable sources. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly paid media by a very sketchy PR site that has since been removed by the local news outlet that had carried the article. It is not a reliable independent source for either content or notability. Best of luck at the AFD#5. Banks Irk (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reference in question: here

I only found it being used once elsewhere, and removed it [161]. --Hipal (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

angela goethals

WRONG FORUM

Not a question relating to sources NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 21:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

what will it take for wikipedia to say at angela bethany goethals's wikipedia bio that her date of birth is may 20 1977?

and that she has been married to russell soder since 2005?

and that she has 2 kids?

because that's very important information you're leaving about her wikipedia! Robby mercier (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources Softlem (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is OEIS reliable for this use?

I am looking at 227 (number) and I notice the article is sourced to OEIS entries. If I remember correctly, the site is user-gen, making it not reliable. Is it reliable enough to use? NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 20:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large panel of mathematicians who vet and review any submissions before they are included, so it is not really a Wiki, and is widely regarded as reliable by experts. I defer to their expertise and have no problem in it being used as a source in articles that I do not understand at all. Banks Irk (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks.

Resolved

NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 21:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Information Center; Hamas run?

Who are they? It seems that their website is blocked by the PLO authorities in the West Bank. Synotia (moan) 07:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it is cited as a reference in 7 articles. Is there a live question about its reliability for a specific statement in any of those articles? If not, this is not a question for RSN. Banks Irk (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here I was directed to this place. Please, no ping pong... Synotia (moan) 10:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It just helps, as per the noticeboard header and the edit notice, if you include details in your question. We're not psychic.
The source probably needs to be attributed but should be reliable for Hamas' position. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. For casualty figures, it can be used for the Hamas position, with attribution. Banks Irk (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Signal

Yesterday, I saw in my news feed on my Android a Washington Post article about John Clauser, specifically about a Nobel Prize winner pivoted toward climate change denial. I was not familiar with the subject, and the article remains paywalled (naturally), so I took to Wikipedia to read about the subject. As expected, there is a section about Clauser's denial with the Post's article newly added, but I also noticed a footnote adjacent to it, which points to The Daily Signal. I thought, as editors, we were not to use The Daily Signal. Have I been incorrect? The source has been removed and can be added back in if this discussion finds for its reliability. Free Media Kid$ 20:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last discussion appears to be this one in archive 334. The general consensus of that discussion seems to be cautionary due to it's relationship to The Heritage Foundation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of yet, no user has reinserted the source, but it may be because I urged them to do so only "if this discussion deems it reliable." Reading the Post's article in archive.today to bypass its paywall (an administrator may need to redact this part of my comment if it is indeed the wrong thing to post), I was able to verify the material sourced, and The Daily Signal's piece, published in August, was remotely related to Mr. Clauser's denial, which he professed in November, anyway, so there is nothing to lose from deleting the citation or gain from adding it in. I still lean toward the understanding that The Daily Signal is at best no more reliable than an average think tank publication and publishes undue content. There are better conservative-leaning sources out there. Free Media Kid$ 01:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It always depends on context - of what specific piece is being cited for what specific WP content. See WP:RS, specifically WP:RSCONTEXT "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." And remember that while WP:V is an important policy, RS is a guideline and not a policy, so a page does not necessarily follow it. RS even says it "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though [exceptions] may apply." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources used on David wood article.

A user reverted my edits on David Wood article, where I was adding a section for critisisms. Can anyone see that if sources I used were unreliable or whether the info was not WP:Due. 182.183.20.126 (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well for a start some of them seem to be blogs, so may not be RS. Also we tend to try and avoid criticism sections. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ww2gravestone.com

Is ww2gravestone.com (about page [162]) a reliable source for the medals awarded to Hans Krebs (Wehrmacht general)? Source cited is [163] - cites added here. The source doesn't seem to directly state what medals were awarded anyway, although it does present a number of photos of medals, and it appears to be a self-published website according to the about page.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a self-published website by an amateur WWII history buff, who has not been independently published by any reliable, secondary, independent publisher. It is not a reliable source. Banks Irk (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, a self-published website. Which means no editorial oversight. I do not see where any footnotes, nor citations to RS books and sources are given for the sketchy information written therein. Agree, it is not shown to be a reliable source. Kierzek (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1960s & 1970s sources for "Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group"

Are these sources too old to support a statement in Wikivoice in the lead of Kurds that "Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group"?

"Kurds" (1978). Encyclopedia Islamica, 2nd edition (current edition is 3rd).
J. Limbert. (1968). "The Origins and Appearance of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran." Iranian Studies [164]
C.E. Bosworth (1977). The Medieval History of Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia. [165]

These came up at an ongoing RFC at Talk:Kurds#RFC: Iranian ethnic group. I argued WP:AGEMATTERS (because 21st century sources are available) and another editor suggested taking it to RSN, so here I am. Thanks for your feedback. Levivich (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:AGEMATTERS says Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded.... Sources don't go off like milk, they get superseded by new knowledge. If new sources don't describe Kurds as an Iranian ethnic group, then they have been superseded, but if new sources don't contradict these sources them they are still RS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. I think it's been superseded but in the RFC it seems not everyone agrees. One newer source seems to say it:

Garnik Asatrian's Prolegomena to the Study of the Kurds (Iran and the Caucasus, 2009), p. 8: The ancient history of the Kurds, as in case of many other Iranian ethnic groups (Baluchis, etc.), can be reconstructed but in a very tentative and abstract form.

Others say something different:

A Modern History of the Kurds (4th ed., I.B. Tauris, 2021) by David McDowall, pp. 8-9: It is doubtful that the Kurds form an ethnically coherent whole in the sense that they have a common ancestry.
Sebastian Maisel's Kurds: An Encyclopedia of Life, Culture, and Society (ABC-Clio, 2018), p. xiii: The origins of the Kurds are contested, but for many they represent an indigenous group of upper Mesopotamia often described as the mountain people in the Zagros and Taurus. (The Zagros Mountains are in Iran; the Taurus Mountains are in Turkey.)
Michael Eppel, A people without a state: the Kurds from the rise of Islam to the dawn of nationalism (University of Texas Press, 2016), pp. 4-5: The similarity between the signifiers Carduchians and Kurds and the geographic location of the Carduchian country have been the bases for the identification of Carduchians as ancient Kurds by scholars ... Other scholars have considered the Kurds to be descendants of the ancient Medes ... who remained in the mountains of Kurdistan and did not undergo “Iranization” ... Still other scholars ... have expressed doubts as to the identification of the Carduchians as forebears of the Kurds and reject the connection between the Kurds and the Medes ... emphasiz[ing] the connection between the Kurds and the Cyrtii (Kurti)...
John Shoup's Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia (ABC-Clio, 2011), p. 159: ...the Kurdish people are thought to be descended from the Carduchii...An Iranian people by language, the Kurdish people are ethnically diverse due to intermarriage with other ethnic groups...
Denise Natali, The Kurds and the State: Evolving National Identity in Iraq, Turkey, and Iran (Syracuse University Press, 2005), p. xvii: Although some Kurds trace Kurdish civilization to the seventh millenium, the majority date their origins to the Median Empire in the sixth century B.C. ... [scholars] emphasize the uniqueness of Kurdish identity ... Kurds are Kurds because they are not Arabs, Persians, or Turks.

So is that superseded? I guess the question is, in determining what to say in wikivoice, should the 1960s and 1970s works be given equal weight to the 21st-century works? Or less weight? Or more weight? Levivich (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case where there is disagreement between academic sources, as seems to be the case here, it might be best to describe that disagreement in the article. Not all details have a single clear definition. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WhatCulture

Years ago, I started a thread for WhatCulture, a low-quality entertainment website that should be written off as unreliable. I made the same point then in seeking to build a solid consensus about its usability, and if memory serves, I was also asked whether I favored deprecating it, and perhaps also blacklisting it. I never responded, which I regret. Anyway, it was unanimously declared unreliable, a verdict I stand by.

A bit has changed since the 2020 discussion. In 2022, Future plc ignominiously acquired WhatCulture. "Ignominiously" is an understatement, considering that Future is behind many, generally high-quality publications. A reader familiar with the company and its publications should thus be assured of the quality of this website's content. Instead, what one gets is still the same old farmed content whose authors attempt little, if any, serious journalism and which is comparable in contemptible ways to what one sees from YouTube channels like WatchMojo, which is not listed at WP:RSP, but has been found useless by WikiProject Video games and previously here on the RSN. A word of note—and it still surprises me—is that at least one author, as was brought to light in this discussion, apparently has worked for other websites (though I could not verify whether they are the same person). On top of that, the policy that "You do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications" seems to have disappeared in mid-2023—the good part. The bad part is that it still exists in a different flavor: "Experience isn't necessary, but it helps."

All things considered, WhatCulture has been, and still is, a classic stereotype of McJournalism. It prioritizes article quantity over quality, utilizes clickbait, and at the expense of that seeks to maximize article views and profits. It is not another New York Post Metro, or The History Channel, but the equivalent of the Daily Mail, The Sun, and other sources of information that we wish did not appear in our search results. I suggest we deprecate it. It may also be prudent to put an edit filter over the source since I suspect it has been inserted into articles by users either engaged in spam or not knowing Wikipedia's concept of reliability. Free Media Kid$ 01:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement from me that this is a trash source. For anyone interested it's currently used in ~850 articles.[166] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GNIS regurgitators

background Project:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 357#RfC: GNIS and Project:Reliability of GNIS data

Sprekelsville, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Sprekelsville, California — "Original Citation: Occidental College. Accessed from classic.oxy.edu on 15 December 2005"
http://classic.oxy.edu at the Wayback Machine (archived 2005-12-15)
Stockton, Arizona (AfD discussion)

Failing the Sprekelsville test:

https://california.hometownlocator.com/ca/el-dorado/sprekelsville.cfm

Failing the Stockton test:

https://roadsidethoughts.com/az/stockton-xx-mohave-profile.htm — The non-existent people at an uninhabited former mine from the 1890s don't self-identify as "Stocktonians".

The subject of GNIS regurgitators has come up again at Alden, Colorado (AfD discussion). Dlthewave has mentioned these before; and hometownlocator and roadsidethoughts are two of the frequently used ones, cited as sources to — ironically — bolster or replace the known-unreliable GNIS. roadsidethoughts in particular makes it very clear that it is a GNIS regurgitator, and they all have all of the problems associated with the underlying GNIS data.

Aside: The Sprekelsville Test is quite useful in other ways. There is a Spreckels family in California associated with a lot of stuff, historically, some of which is linked from that page. But that is Spreckels, with a c. On the presumption that someone from Occidental College did say something about the Spreckels, even though that doesn't pan out when one consults the Wayback Machine's archive, the fact that they got a mis-spelling and the site of the El Dorado Limestone Mine on Shingle Mine Road by Deer Creek south-west of Shingle Springs, California into the GNIS by a wholly wrong name in 2005 should be telling us that the GNIS, which famously mangled names for EBCDIC purposes anyway, is unreliable for even names.

So we really should have something in the Reliable Sources lists that points out that the GNIS regurgitators are just as bad as using the GNIS directly — which effectively one is as it's all machine-generated from the GNIS computerized records.

Uncle G (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; in fact (as creator of the Sprekelsville PROD) I wouldn't be averse to a "generally unreliable" evaluation of GNIS, RoadsideThoughts, and HometownLocator (and the like) all around. The latter sites are SEO garbage, and I'm appalled by the number of United States geographic articles sourced only to them (see my recent PROD nominations for examples). And some of these sites appear to get data from Wikipedia, creating an Ouroboros of trivial (if not patently false) geographic misinformation. This is as much a WP:GEOLAND issue as it is a reliable sources issue, but if we can get sources declared unreliable for geographic purposes, that's a step in the right direction. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These aggregators are worse than the databases they draw from because the sources are unclear and there's no apparent effort to fact-check or maintain accuracy as required by WP:RS, they're simply duplicating the data along with all errors. I can't imagine a situation where an aggregator is a better source than readily-available GNIS or census records. –dlthewave ☎ 14:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd Petersen book review

Boyd Petersen provided a book review of Martha Beck's "Leaving the Saints" book (in which accuses her father Hugh Nibley of sexual abuse). The book review appears in a the Journal of Mormon History (JMH), an independent academic article that has generally been considered a reliable source. The review had been used to support the inclusion in the Hugh Nibley article of the statement, "Boyd Petersen, Nibley's biographer and son-in-law, also rejected Beck's claims. In his response to Leaving the Saints, he argues that the book contains other inconsistencies and instances of hyperbole", but the inclusion has been challenged arguing that it does not meet WP:RS due to Petersen's relation to Hugh Nibley. Can the book review in JMH be used as a reliable source for this statement in the article? FyzixFighter (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of sourcing issues in that article, many with the same problems as this review. This source, and many others in the article, are from LDS apologetics publishers and publications which are problematic in a BLP given their lack of true independence. Apart from the RS questions, in this case the two citations to reviews seem undue. It is probably enough to say that other close family members disputed the claims without the exposition. Banks Irk (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean by BLP issue - Nibley is dead? Also, this source (Journal of Mormon History) is not an LDS apologetic publication but an independent (not associated with the LDS Church or any of its education bodies like BYU) academic journal by the Mormon History Association, whose member include those who reject Mormonism. If this were BYU Studies, FAIR, or Interpreter, then I would agree regarding "true independence" and there should be more pause. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His daughter isn't dead. The BLP standards apply to statements about living persons, even in other articles. Banks Irk (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petersen is alive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:FyzixFighter - it seems a semi-reasonable RS for that line covering this part of reaction to her book. It would be more solid support for a line if phrased that there was a book review thus being RS for fact of there being a review and attribution to it being his own words, e.g. "In a book review, Nibley's biographer and son-in-law Boyd Petersen rejected Beck's claims and argued that the book contains 'persistent hyperbolic assertions and outright distortions of fact' ". Or cite to a mention in a third party covering the controversy which says something about the Boyd Petersen book review and convey how they characterise it. e.g. the NY Times, although third party coverage might itself be giving a POV rather than just factual reporting. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FyzixFighter: is there a particular reason you opened this without noting so in the talk page discussion Talk:Hugh Nibley#Peterson or pinging me? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

911truth.org

Not a reliable source, so are any of these uses justified?[167] Eg], for Henry Poole (technologist), where it is the only reference, it's used for "He is a signatory to the 9/11 Truth Statement." Doug Weller talk 12:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this runs afoul of both WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS, even if it were a reliable source. Essentially this is the organization saying, "These are our members." Banks Irk (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention WP:DUE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup… see: WP:VNOT. There are several other policies and guidelines that indicate that this information should not be included. And if we don’t include the information, there is no reason to worry about whether the source reliably supports it. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DraftHistory.com

A significant number of the 303 articles in the category Category:Lists_of_National_Football_League_draftees_by_college_football_team are sourced only to this website, which appears to be the work of a single person. It does however appear to have existed for 23 years, so that's one thing, and I'm sure there's a good chance it may be accurate. So the question is - is this good enough, and does an alternative reliable source exist for these statistical articles? Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks WP:SELFPUBLISHed. If RSes cite it or the author is an expert maybe its reliable but if not its just a wp:fansite Softlem (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a WP:SPS. The site and his Twitter feed are frequently cited in other questionable sites (rather than doing their own research and reporting), which might indicate some recognition of expertise, but he's never been independently published, so he's not a WP:SME. Moreover, self-published sources, even by experts at are not to be used in BLPs. Banks Irk (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If he could be shown to have been published by independent reliable sources then he would be usable in standard articles, but WP:BLPSPS/WP:SPS are quite clear Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NGO Freedom House citing Falun Gong sources (Epoch Times, etc.)

First, a bit of context: The Falun Gong is a new religious movement centered around China-born Li Hongzhi. It is headquartered out of a compound called Dragon Springs in Deer Park, New York, where Li Hongzhi also lives. For more on the extremely controversial Falun Gong and its various media arms, like the conspiracy/Qanon superspreader The Epoch Times, here's a very recent article from NBC News on the whole matter.

As you can probably picture from that read, our Falun Gong and related articles are rough corners of Wikipedia. This is solely because Falun Gong and related articles are actively lobbied and edited by groups of adherents. We know this because (1) what would otherwise be totally normal edits and even praised additions of new WP:RS instead typically provoke intense backlash, taunts, and insults, and (2) because scholars have outright written about the Falun Gong's and their leader's Li Hongzhi's attempts at controlling Wikipedia coverage (see for example Lewis 2018: 80).

On to the matter at hand. Like many other religious groups, Falun Gong is persecuted in China. Li Hongzhi started it there in the 1990s before moving his operations to the US. Yet it is tough to get objective information about what exactly is going on over there today. This is partially because over time the group has cultivated a very cozy relationship with NGOs like Amnesty International and Freedom House. This friendly relationship has also attracted the attention of scholars, who have noted for example that "the press often quote Amnesty International, but Amnesty's reports are not verified, and mainly come from Falun Gong sources" (Lewis 2018: 80 & Kavan 2005).

Freedom House frequently also uncritically cites Falun Gong sources, especially Falun Gong's "Falun Dafa Information Center". Here is for example Freedom House citing Falun Gong for demographic information (specifically falundafa.info, ref 31, p. 126), for example.

Now, Wikipedia does not allow for citing Falun Gong arms like The Epoch Times—we've had enough Qanon, Trump truther, vaccination conspiracy, anti-evolution this or that, and January 6 stuff over the years, just as the tip of the iceberg—but we have editors over at the Falun Gong article that say we should be citing the Falun Gong's claims if Freedom House cites them. Personally, I see this as little more than laundering a source, the same source no less that brings us all stripes of conspiracy theories via the Epoch Times and by way of various other less visible organizations.

So, to put an end to these tedious discussions, should we cite claims from Freedom House that come from the Falun Gong, including information that Freedom House takes directly from Falun Gong websites? :bloodofox: (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting through all the irrelevant background on the topic, the issue at hand is that Bloodofox wants the article to use only sources that are hostile to Falun Gong, regardless of publisher. Sennalen (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that translates to all media coverage of the group from the past several years. I rest my point. Anyway, note that this is clean start account that has quite likely edited extensively on this article in the past. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thats an important thing to note... There appears to have been a significant difference in how sources treat FG as they've gotten more and more fringe and more and more involved in American and European politics over the last half decade or so. An insistence on overusing sources from before then instead of the most modern ones would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 31 hours for the above unsubstantiated personal attack. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom House is a long-established reputable advocacy think tank that has been discussed many times before at RSN. It is a reliable source, but because many, of not most of its articles are opinion pieces reflecting its editorial position, citations to it as a source should be attributed. Looking at the specific article and reference in the OP, the Freedom House article appropriately attributes the demographic figures to their sources, which to a discerning reader is neither endorsement nor criticism. I do not think that this objection is well-taken. Banks Irk (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the secondary sources we have about similar NGOs, I note that Freedom House does not inform the reader that "The Falun Dafa Information Center" is in fact simply just another arm of the Falun Gong. It takes some digging and familiarity with the topic to know this. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually disagree with that, I think its so obviously a part of Falun Gong that saying so is almost redundant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like more a due weight issue than a reliability one, yes Freedom House cites FG sources... But cherry picking just that info from those sources to include in the article isn't due. I hear your concerns in terms of Freedom House being used to get FG sources which we otherwise couldn't use in the "back door" per say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the entire Freedom House report which has separate chapters focusing on religious freedom of Buddhism and Daoism, Christianity, Islam, Falun Gong, and Tibetan Buddhism. The chapter on Falun Gong cites from The Falun Dafa Information Center among other sources. Other chapters cite the reports of victim organizations as well. For example, the chapter on Christianity cites from China Aid, a Christian human rights organization; the chapter on Islam cites the Uyghur American Association's report "China's Iron-Fisted Repression of Uyghur Religious Freedom"; and the chapter on Tibetan Buddhism cite sources including The Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and interviews of Tibetan Buddhists. Thanks. Path2space (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And why should we treat their coverage of FG different from their coverage of all of those other topics? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GNIS for "populated place" list entries

According to the 2021 RfC, the GNIS database is unreliable for "feature class" designations such as "populated place". A question was raised at Talk:List of populated places in Colorado: A–F and Talk:List of populated places in Colorado: P–Z about whether it can be used to support list entries that have no other sources. Does the reliability issue only apply to notability for standalone articles or does it cover all uses including lists? (pinging involved user Buaidh) –dlthewave ☎ 23:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "'Anti-Al Jazeera' channel Al Mayadeen goes on air". France 24. 12 June 2012. Retrieved 6 July 2012.

[2] "Executive Summary" (PDF). Syria Cyber Watch. 25 November 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 December 2012. Retrieved 6 December 2012.

[3] "India Suspends Al-Jazeera Broadcast Over Map Dispute". Time. 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2023-10-26.

[1]

[2]

[1]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards