Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

RFC: Electronic Intifada

What is the reliability of Electronic Intifada?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The good

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

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

The bad (in no particular order):

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

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

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

The ugly

a) aggressive advocacy

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

c) lack of an apparent editorial process or failure thereof

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

Recommendation

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for reasons: first, scholarly contributors. Ilan Pappe is a contributor to E-I, for example: [27]. That's the only name on the list I recognize (because I'm not that well-read), but I bet if we went through the list one by one we'd find Pappe was not the only bona fide historian on that list.

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

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

This is a good solution. The list of contributors actually includes a lot of experts who we might want to cite (e.g. Refaat Alareer, Joseph Massad and Steven Salaita, as well as respect commentators (e.g. Budour Youssef Hassan, Patrick Strickland). However, (a) I suspect the material they publish at EI is lower quality than that which gets published at other outlets, and (b) it's noticable that this list is extremely old: most of these names have not published there for years, and practically none of the commentators on the front page now are listed there. Looking at the front page now, I see for example Bryce Greene, a Substack blogger whose career highlight to date was giving a Russian propaganda pitch about Nordstream at a UN meeting;[28] or Mohamed Elmaazi, who worked for Sputnik until recently and also writes for TheCanary.[29] So we need a solution that enables us to cite genuine experts when puplished at EI, while excluding the conspiracy theorists and fringe bloggers. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

One more thing, is there a way to distinguish opinions from news published by the EI? E.g., is this article an opinion piece or news [30]? Here are some of the quotes from it (a) But we are to believe the Israelis had no idea [of the October 7 attack that] was planned right under their noses? They probably knew. And they waited for it., (b) The vast network of Zionist organizations acts as appendages of the Israeli state that extend into all our lives around the world. Alaexis_¿question? 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two branches of the same tree: OW-JP-AH and WCE-WRD/WCD

Operation World, Joshua Project and Asia Harvest

Asia Harvest (https://www.asiaharvest.org/) is an American Christian missionary organisation focusing on Asia and especially on China. They produce extremely detailed (and overestimated) fantasy statistics about Christians for each one of the smallest administrative divisions of the country.

Let's take, for example, the purported 2020 statistics for Shanghai (https://www.asiaharvest.org/christians-in-china-stats/shanghai). As you can see, they extrapolate absolute numbers on the basis of the very same percentage values for the total population numbers of most of the districts, and then the resulting numbers are divided according to the various statistical subcategories. Amongst the numbers in the tens of subcategories, they cite sources for only three of them, and they are some journals (probably missionary journals) dated to 1990, 1991 and 1992, while the general data are presented as being dated to 2020. The source for some of the totals is, otherwise, Operation World (https://operationworld.org/), "the definitive volume of prayer information about the world", associated with the Joshua Project, which is already classified as unreliable in the WP:RSP list.

I propose that Asia Harvest and Operation World be added to the Joshua Project entry in the WP:RSP list. Besides, on the Wikipedia article about Operation World it is written that the subject is related to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the predecessor of what is now published as the World Christian Database and World Religion Database, themselves thoroughly discussed in 2018 and 2022-2023, and listed in WP:RSP. Æo (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I ping Erp who raised doubts about the extreme precision of WCD/WRD data in the abovementioned 2022-2023 discussion, since the same argument applies to this case. Æo (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Besides, on the Wikipedia article about Operation World it is written that the subject is related to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the predecessor of what is now published as the World Christian Database and World Religion Database, themselves thoroughly discussed in 2018 and 2022-2023

The meaning of this point is somewhat lost on me. According to the close of the linked 2023 discussion, There is no consensus to deprecate these sources (bolding added). If consider Asia Harvest or Operation World is/are affiliated with/comparable to the WCE as a source, that would suggest not deprecating them, but instead merely advising editors to use them with prudence while favoring, where available, stronger, more certainly reliable sources. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

They are clearly not the very same as the WRD/WCD (which is nonetheless questionable, and this is why it is in the perennial sources' list and the closing statement also says that there is rough consensus to attribute it and prefer better sources), at least according to what I have been able to find, although they cross-reference to each other (it is unclear to what extent). Asia Harvest and Operation World are on the other hand directly related to the Joshua Project, which is classifed as unreliable in the perennial sources' list: The Joshua Project is an ethnological database created to support Christian missions. It is considered to be generally unreliable due to the lack of any academic recognition or an adequate editorial process. The Joshua Project provides a list of sources from which they gather their data, many of which are related evangelical groups and they too should not be used for ethnological data as they are questionable sources.. Æo (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Addendum:

• In The Ethos of Operation World we can read the following statement: We pray that these statistics and prayer points present a reasonably balanced account of what God is doing in our world and of the challenges facing us as we press on to complete the Great Commission. Apart from Operation World, only the World Christian Database/World Religions Database shares our ambition (folly?) in attempting so massive a task as compiling a comprehensive body of data relating to the world’s religions, denominations, and churches, as well as to the progress of the Great Commission.. Here, Operation World and the WRD/WCD are clearly defined as confessional, evangelical entities working together for the "progress of the Great Commission", which is unclear whether it refers to the doctrinal concept or to the American fellowship of evangelical groups which disbanded in 2020.
• In this paper by the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, some of whose members are also the editors of the WRD/WCD, on pp. 16-17 the methodologies of the latter are compared to those of Operation World.

Æo (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for this, but you seem to be saying two different things simultaneously. First you say that They are clearly not the very same (bolding added); then you say they are clearly defined as confessional, evangelical entities working together (bolding added). Are they together, or are they not; and in either case, why is that a reason for depreciation of Asia Harvest (which is the source I thought was under discussion).

In any case, it is not so clear to this reader as it is to you. The Ethos statement does not seem like evidence of organizational collaboration. Rather, it reads as an observation that they share a field of study: both are attempts at compiling a comprehensive body of data relating to the world’s religions, denominations, and churches. To use another example, both Michael Burlingame and Ronald White shared the ambition (folly?) in attempting so massive a task as narrating the life of Abraham Lincoln in single-volume biographies. But they were not collaborators.

As for the "Christianity in its Global Context, 1970–2020" document, the comparison drawn is moreover a contrast, pointing out how Operation World's definitions of "evangelical" inflate their numbers compared to the World Christian Database.

Finally, simply as a note, you emphasize connections between GCTS faculty and the World Christian Database but have left out how World Christian Database is published by Brill, an academic publisher that employs editorial and peer review. (Likewise, World Christian Encyclopedia was published by Oxford University Press, also an academic publisher that employs editorial and peer review.) That, plus their relative contemporaneity (as both were published in the twenty-first century) instills a great deal of confidence in WCD and WCE as sources.

In any case, this has been a digression. The posted discussion at hand pertains to Asia Harvest and Operation World, which have different publishers and different traits. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It is ascertained that WCE and OW originated as two branches of the same tree, and that they maintain some connections, as hinted to in the statement above about the "Great Commission" and underlined especially in the sentence in that paper Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background which I have quoted below (17:04, January 2 addendum): There has been a long history of close collaboration and mutual sharing of information among Operation World ... and the World Christian Encyclopedia. This is what I meant, and I am still investigating to find further, clearer evidences. Besides, AH and OW appear to be related as well, given that the few references showed by AH are mostly to OW statistics, and in turn OW is clearly connected to the Joshua Project (they are authored/edited by the same person, Patrick Johnstone), which is acknowledged to be a completely unreliable source.

Amongst the many discussions about the JP, read this 2008 one, which was particularly animated (and which highlights that already back then there were strange waves of spamming of this type of sources, as I myself noticed more recently); some quotes: [JP is] a very aggressive evangelistic project. ... Linking or even mentioning this project on this kind of scale should be considered as fundamentalist Christian spam. (Jeroenvrp); All links to the Joshua Project should be deleted immediately and without question. The information on the site is often original research and totally incorrect. It is not a reliable source at all. The fact that someone can't find alternative information on Google is no excuse: get out of your chair and head to a library. (Caniago); Here is another example which illustrates the sort of disinformation they are spreading. They invented a whole range sub-ethnic groups of the Javanese ethnic group, yet there are no published academic sources (in books or peer reviewed papers) which mention these sub-ethnic groups at all. There are a plethora of other examples of their disinformation if you compare their website against reliable sources. (Caniago); The project site is not an academic source. ... The Joshua Project has an religious agenda. Anyone should agree on that. This is very clear on the site and not even that, it is also very offensive. Not only for people of these ethnic groups, but for anyone who condemn these kind of aggressive evangelisation practices. I even find it very scary how they present the data (e.g. see the column "Progress Scale"). It's like: "evangelism meets the Borg". ... The data on the Joshua Project is unreliable, like others before me have proved. ... Information from the English Wikipedia is easily translated to other Wikipedia projects. Although people who translate should double check these kind of sources, unfortunately sources like the Joshua Project are spreading like a virus to those other projects. That's why I am here now, because I noticed the Joshua Project was listed as a source on the Dutch Wikipedia and learned that they came from here. So know your responsibility! ... To conclude this: I am not accusing individual Wikipedians for "fundamentalist Christian spamming". No, what I mean that on a larger scale it's "fundamentalist Christian spamming". (Jeroenvrp); There are no cases where there Josuha project is the best source of data. A bunch of evangelical missionaries are the last people who can be trusted to present non-biased reliable ethnic data; the examples we have given proven the case. (Caniago).

Regarding the fact that some of the sources we are discussing here (WCE and its successors) have been published by renowned publishing houses, this does not make them reliable. This was already pointed out in the 2022-2023 discussion. The "peer review" and "editorial process" is very often carried out by people belonging to the very same agenda and organisations (those American evangelical organisations). Take for instance the paper Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background that I quoted below: it was written by D. A. Miller, peer reviewed/edited/co-authored by Patrick Johnstone of the WEC International, and published on the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion founded by Rodney Stark (known for his publications which were very supportive of Christianity); the journal's editorial board includes Massimo Introvigne, whose CESNUR and related publications are themselves currently listed as unreliable in the WP:RSP list (and I personally consider CESNUR, or at least some of its publications, as much more reliable than the sources we are discussing here). Regarding the fact, and the problem, that the WCE and its successors have been published as seemingly academic resources, there are some further considerations expressed in a recent critical essay which I will cite and quote in a separate section below (cf. #World Christian Encyclopedia and World Religion Database/World Christian Database). Æo (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that CESNUR and its related publications are more reliable than the assessment listed on Wikipedia's current Perennial Sources page would suggest. I think the generally unreliable characterization is inaccurate and that the academic field of religious studies has a much more favorable impression of CESNUR than Wikipedia's Perennial Sources page does.

Patrick Johnstone was not a peer reviewer of "Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census". Blind peer review means the reviewer is anonymous. Johnstone and Duane Miller are listed co-authors of the paper. The two peer reviewers would have been two other scholars whose identities neither of us know.

Your impression that renowned publishing houses like Brill and Oxford University Press are somehow being subverted by a conspiracy of Evangelical authors who defy the consensus of the field of religious demography stretches this editor's credulity. The peer review process is more robust than that.

That information is shared between World and WCE does not necessarily make one unreliable merely because the other is. Different sources can use the same raw data to arrive at different conclusions, such as how WCE and Operation World arrive at quite different total numbers, projections, etc.

In any case, I think that an earlier comment in this discussion from Erp rings true: for this particular discussion, we should concentrate on whether Asia Harvest and/or Operation World are reliable. There is not a consensus between us about WCE or WCD or WRD. Maybe there can yet be a consensus between us about Asia Harvest and Operation World. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with P-Makoto: "Your impression that renowned publishing houses like Brill and Oxford University Press are somehow being subverted by a conspiracy of Evangelical authors who defy the consensus of the field of religious demography stretches this editor's credulity. The peer review process is more robust than that." There is no evidence that the process is somehow compromised and is just speculation. Borders on conspiracy theory actually. In fact they show divergence of data too per already quoted differences in numbers in the sources. They are not equivalent or the same. I also agree that we should concentrate on whether Asia Harvest and/or Operation World are reliable. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

P-Makoto, I never wrote about "a conspiracy of Evangelical authors who defy the consensus" and are trying to subvert academic publishers. Apart from this, you wrote that the Ethos statement does not seem like evidence of organizational collaboration, but the statement in the Miller & Johnstone paper clearly tells us about a long history of close collaboration and mutual sharing of information. Also re-read Erp's comment below, with an excerpt from the Operation World book (2010 edition, p. 25) telling us that ... the Joshua Project List, the World Christian Encyclopedia and a handful of other resources are at the heart of this information, which is both fuel for prayer and data for mission strategy, and on that page the discourse of the author is general, about the shared project in which OW, the JP and the WCE are all actors. In my opinion, there is enough evidence to affirm that the WCE and the OW, and their affiliated projects, are still closely related. The discussion about the WCE and its successors, however, continues below (cf. #World Christian Encyclopedia and World Religion Database/World Christian Database). Æo (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding P-Makoto, I never wrote about:

You wrote that Regarding the fact that some of the sources we are discussing here (WCE and its successors) have been published by renowned publishing houses, this does not make them reliable. This was already pointed out in the 2022-2023 discussion. The "peer review" and "editorial process" is very often carried out by people belonging to the very same agenda and organisations (those American evangelical organisations) (bolding added). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The next question is the reliability of "Operation World", multiple editions by Patrick Johnstone and Jason Mandryk with the latest being the 7th edition, published 2010, plus a web site. It is explicitly a prayer guide and does not seem to be peer reviewed. I note in reference to the Joshua Project that Operation World's website states: "The Joshua Project is our default site for people group information." https://operationworld.org/prayer-resources/helpful-resources/ Looking at the google preview of the book has "...Joshua Project List, the World Christian Encyclopedia and a handful of other resources are at the heart of this information" Given the dependence of "Operation World" on Joshua Project a "Generally unreliable source" and lack of peer review for the work itself, I would say Operation World must also be listed as "Generally unreliable source". Erp (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and the WRD/WCD should be re-assessed as well, given its connection with Asia Harvest/Operation World. In Darrell L. Bock (2013), The Cape Town Commitment: A Confession of Faith, A Call to Action: Bibliographic Resources, p. 32, we read: These two books come from the same stable. While up to the mid-1990s the databases behind Operation World and the World Christian Encyclopedia were virtually identical, they began to diverge in the 1990s, partly because Operation World took a more generous definition of the word 'evangelical'. In 2010, World Christian Encyclopedia said there were 300 million evangelicals worldwide, whereas Operation World said there were 550 million.... On the same page, the World Religion Database/World Christian Database and the Atlas of Global Christianity are identified as the continuations of the World Christian Encyclopedia, while The Future of Global Christianity is identified as built on the database of Operation World. Other minor publications associated with them (listed on the same page) are: World Christian Trends – AD 30-2200, World Churches Handbook, Global Religious Trends 2010 to 2020, Megatrends and the Persecuted Church, Global Restrictions on Religion, Global Pentecostalism, The New Faces of Christianity, The Next Christendom, Barna Updates (https://www.barna.org), and Global Mapping International (https://www.gmi.org). Ultimately, they are all affiliated with the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, the same who launched the 10/40 window concept. Æo (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The assessment of the World Religion Database and World Christianity Database strikes me as a separate question. If they are re-assessed, I would encourage re-assessing them "upward" rather than "downward". The source you cite, Cape Town Commitment, even identifies how the two sources are different: Operate World took a more generous definition of the word 'evangelical'. In 2010, World Christian Encyclopedia said there were 300 million evangelicals worldwide, whereas Operation World said there were 550 million. You speak of WCE/WRD/WCDs' connection with Asia Harvest/Operation World; however, what seems to be demonstrated is their disconnection; if Operation World and Asia Harvest are overstating, WRD/WCD/WCE apparently are holding back in comparison. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that the WRD/WCD should be re-assessed "upwards"; their problems, which are still different from those of the AH/OW discussed here, were pointed out and thoroughly discussed with extensive quotes from critical sources in the specific 2022-2023 discussion. AH/OW and WCD/WRD are ultimately two branches of the same tree, dedicated to "the progress of the Great Commission" (cf. above), and this does not mean that if one of the two branches is unreliable the other is reliable, and vice versa. Both of them have problems, albeit differentiated. Æo (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

There appears to not be consensus between us. The specified 2022-2023 discussion also had extensive references from laudatory sources which reviewed the Encyclopedia positively. I developed an impression that the listing of WRD/WCD/WCE as "additional considerations" may have been excessive and not the right call.

But that would be a discussion different from that of the present one about Asia Harvest. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we should concentrate on whether Asia Harvest and/or Operation World are reliable. Given that Operation World depends on the already listed as generally unreliable, Joshua Project, and Asia Harvest depends on Operation World that both should also be listed as generally unreliable. In addition neither seem to be peer reviewed. Does anyone disagree? Erp (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Before leaping to "Generally Unreliable", may I ask whether "Additional Considerations" would be appropriate, and if you do not think so, why not?

I would note that peer review, while a gold standard, is not Wikipedia's only standard. Many sources subject only to editorial review and not peer review (newspapers, magazines, nonfiction books published with non-academic but still reputable presses) are accepted on Wikipedia, so the lack of peer review is not itself necessarily a point against. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

P-Makoto, True. Your observations are accurate with respect to the additional comments you have brought up. Indeed the jump to generally unreliable is why the RFC for WRD/WCD/WCE failed depreciation petty badly across the board. The academic sources did not support such a claim. Context matters to what Asia Harvest is being used on. Also numbers on China are hard to pin down. All polls are estimates for that. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Erp that AH/OW should be classified as "generally unreliable" given the precedent represented by the related Joshua Project. The latter was the subject of eleven discussions on this noticeboard, and it was decidedly assessed as unreliable; just read how editors commented here and here, for instance: ...some argue based on the idea that they wouldn't have any reason to give inaccurate figures. This isn't a useful argument. There's also strong opposition to using them as a source. According to their list of data sources, a solid majority of their sources are just other evangelical groups... They shouldn't be ranked beside census counts as equivalent... They should be considered unusable due to a lack of verifiable methodology and recognition for statistical or academic contribution, even when setting aside all questions of advocacy and bias. (Elaqueate); We have no idea where they get their data, it's not part of their primary mission, and there's no significant penalty to them for errors, so I see no reason to consider them as a reliable source for population statistics. (Mangoe); I looked at the source, and I believe you. It's a hobby site by three random religious enthusiasts. Certainly not a reliable source for population data. (Alsee). Regarding the use of non-academic sources ("newspapers, magazines, nonfiction books published with non-academic but still reputable presses"), P-Makoto, yes, I think they should be eschewed and I always try to eschew them when I contribute to Wikipedia. Besides, other considerations apply in this specific case, given that we are dealing with a field of information, statistics, for which there are official censuses and statistical institutions which provide "hard data" — i.e. precise numerical results which constitute "facts" subject to minimal interpretation —, and even in the case we need "soft data" — i.e. unofficial and not always accurate data —, there are still impartial and reliable survey agencies to rely upon. In said field of information, we do not need WP:SPECULATIONs produced by organisations with blatant agendas of evangelism, proselytism or propaganda through unclear methodologies (in our case the methodologies are declared, indeed: word of mouth from priests, pastors and other church staff). Æo (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: Here other users expressed other clear evaluations of the quality of the JP: Religious advocacy group, cites unreliable data sources. (PaleoNeonate); Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. You cannot trust any of that website's claimed population numbers for ethnic groups even to an order of magnitude. (anonymous IP); Very obviously unreliable. Attempting to use it as a source is absurd. (Tayi Arajakate). The use of the Joshua Project on Wikipedia even caused the creation of an article about a non-existing ethnic group: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jawa Pesisir Lor. Æo (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the use of non-academic sources ("newspapers, magazines, nonfiction books published with non-academic but still reputable presses"), P-Makoto, yes, I think they should be eschewed and I always try to eschew them when I contribute to Wikipedia.

As individual editors, we all I suppose have the option to hold ourselves to higher standards than Wikipedia's; however, it is not consensus to, as a project, eschew newspapers, magazines, and nonfiction books published with non-academic but still reputable presses for being such. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at https://www.asiaharvest.org/christians-in-china-stats/china Multiple sources, I initially thought the TSPM and CPA figures were accurate since they are possibly official government sources (these are registered and recognized churches) except notes 3 and 4 indicate that the registered protestant number is from a 2010 survey that found 23 million registered protestants and that the numbers were adjusted to include non-adults and presumably the decade since. The number has been adjusted to 39,776,275 for 2020. In addition the table apparently took the 2010 Operation World figures of 86,910,600 protestants in 2010 (unregistered House Church and TSPM) and apparently projected forward to 2020 and got 109,650,630 (split between the 39,776,275 registered and 69,874,355 unregistered (note the increasing specificity during the data manipulation). I decided to look at what might be the overall source "2020, Hattaway, The China Chronicles, no page number given" which seems to be a 7 book series "The China Chronicles" by Paul Hattaway and published, by as far as I can see, "Asia Harvest" an organization Hattaway co-founded with his wife. I'm guessing he or his organization is also responsible for this table published on their website. Both count as self-published and not at all peer reviewed. They might accurately cite other sources. Erp (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Here we can read that the book Operation China by Paul Hattaway has <...a foreword by Patrick Johnstone, author of the best-selling Operation World, who "I have relied much on the information in 'Operation China' during compilation of the section on China for the latest edition of 'Operation World'. May this unique book go a long way to focus prayer on the need for the gospel among these peoples.'>. Patrick Johnstone is mentioned in your comment above (20:13, January 1). AH and OW are definitely related. Æo (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I found 54+ references to "Asia Harvest" in Wikipedia. A lot have to do with descriptions of people/languages where Asia Harvest in turn is citing another source (I suspect the "Encyclopedic Dictionary of Chinese Linguistics" for at least some which is a 1991 work in Chinese [Zhongguo yu yan xue da ci dian 中国语言学大辞典]). My guess is that Asia Harvest was used by wiki editors because it has translated some of the information into English. I suspect editors would be better off for a comprehensive work relying on Ethnologue (which has some faults but is generally accepted by scholars) though it does require a subscription. Glottolog is also useful especially for references to works on a language (less so for numbers of speakers).

Operation World is also cited (oddly enough mostly in articles about Baháʼí such as Baháʼí_Faith_in_Nigeria) which has "Estimates of membership vary widely - a 2001 estimate by Operation World showed 1000 Baháʼís in 2001 while the Association of Religion Data Archives (relying on World Christian Encyclopedia) estimated some 38,172 Baháʼís." Another source had about 15,000 in 2000 (Lee, Anthony A. (2011). The Baha'i faith in Africa: establishing a new religious movement, 1952-1962. Studies of religion in Africa. Leiden ; Boston: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-22600-5., page 107, itself citing an unpublished article). I'm inclined to go with the peer reviewed book. Erp (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Duane Miller's Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census (n.b. edited by Patrick Johnstone, WEC International), questioned on this noticeboard in 2017, was built on Operation World and Joshua Project data. On pp. 3-4 we find further details about their parent organisations (as of 2015) and author: The results of this massive, multidecade data collection effort were eventually made available in the form of the religious data on the Operation World website, which is hosted by Global Mapping International, and the ethnolinguistic data on the interactive website of the Joshua Project, for which Johnstone was a senior editor. Therefore additional details on the sources of our information can be found at the website of the Joshua Project, which is currently managed by the U.S. Center for World Missions.. If my understanding is correct, based on our previous findings, Johnstone was ultimately behind both Operation World and the Joshua Project. Æo (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: Let's keep this secondary, as suggested above, but on the same p. 3 we read: There has been a long history of close collaboration and mutual sharing of information among Operation World, the Summer Institute of Linguistics, and the World Christian Encyclopedia.. Æo (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The Miller and Johnstone source clearly supports that Operation World is a reliable source by the way. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Johnstone is the editor/author of the OW and JP themselves. Therefore, that paper is a completely unreliable source. Besides, in the 2017 discussion one of the commentators correctly pointed out that the study misused the word "census" (which has a very precise meaning) in its title, misleading readers to think that the statistics presented were really from a census, when they were not: The author declares that he has published "a global census": the problem is that a census is "an official enumeration of the population, with details as to age, sex, occupation, etc.". So no, it's clearly not a census of any kind. Far from that. (AlessandroDe). Æo (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Heartily disagree, you can't point to a walled garden as evidence of reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with AEo and Erp, these publications should really just be grouped together in one GUNREL entry here. They're all interdependent and interrelated using the same evangelical propagandizing. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: I agree that they should be grouped as a single WP:GUNREL entry. Would you also support a deprecation? I decided to open this discussion since a few days ago I noticed that the OW-JP, through AH, is still being spammed throughout various articles without attention to its problematic nature and classification as unreliable in the perennial sources' list. This has been ongoing since the 2000s, unfortunately, and even on other Wikipedias, as the user Jeroenvrp from the Dutch Wikipedia complained in the comment quoted above from 2008: unfortunately sources like the Joshua Project are spreading like a virus. This is why I think that, perhaps, it is time for the further step of deprecation.

Also, what is your opinion about the related World Christian Encyclopedia and World Religion Database/World Christian Database discussed below? Æo (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Grouping all three together under a single GUNREL entry seems straightforward enough, its a compact ecosystem and all of them are generally unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• I think it is worthwhile to open a new RfC for the deprecation of the OW-JP-AH datasets. Back in 2021, Alaexis, who opened that year's RfC, which resulted in the classification of the JP as "unreliable", complained that it was still being used. Things have not changed since; just take a look at these September 2023 additions (of OW-JP data via AH), complete with a map (and this is not the only case).--Æo (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: OW-JP-AH

The #Operation World, Joshua Project and Asia Harvest are databases of religion demographics related to the Christian missionary movement. OW and the JP are both edited by the Christian missionary Patrick Johnstone, while AH, which reproduces OW-JP statistics for Asia and China, is edited by the Christian missionary Paul Hattaway. The JP has been the subject of more than ten discussions on this noticeboard, with almost all comments finding it completely unreliable. The latest discussion with RfC in 2021 decided its inclusion in the perennial sources' list as a generally unreliable source. Despite this, it is still widely used throughout Wikipedia (cf. 1), and its associated projects OW and AH are also widely used (cf. 3, 4), and this was already a matter of complaint in the previous discussions.

Should the JP, and its associated projects OW and AH, be WP:DEPRECATED? Answer yes or no.

Æo (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

---

• Yes, it's time to deprecate them. The JP was categorised as unreliable in the perennial sources' list with a 2021 RfC, after more than ten discussions on this noticeboard in which comments were almost universally unanimous on the serious unreliability of the source. Despite its classification as unreliable, it, and its related projects OW and AH, continue to be used uncritically in various Wikipedia articles.--Æo (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, unreliable sources, frequently discussed. 2A02:1810:BC3A:D800:A050:6C5A:A34E:91A2 (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Bad RfC -- also, it seems like from the timestamps that it's been snuck in through the back of an existing RfC thread. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC per SamuelRiv. GretLomborg (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

World Christian Encyclopedia and World Religion Database/World Christian Database

Our latest discussion about the World Christian Encyclopedia and its successors, the World Religion Database and World Christian Database, currently also presenting their statistics through the platform of the Association of Religion Data Archives, was in late 2022-early 2023. As demonstrated in the section above (see comments 20:13, 1 January by Erp; 20:16, 1 January addendum by Æo; 17:04, 2 January addendum by Æo; 18:39, 3 January by Æo), the WCE and its successors have some connection and/or collaborate and share information with Patrick Johnstone's Operation World and Joshua Project and their network (incl. Paul Hattaway's Asia Harvest, et al.), and ultimately the WCE and OW branched out around the mid 1990s from the same statistical database, and they all seem to be affiliated with the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (see comment 21:17, 1 January by Æo).

A new critical essay about the WCE and its successors, which adds to those already mentioned in the foregoing 2022-2023 discussion, was published right last year: Adam Stewart's Problematizing the Statistical Study of Global Pentecostalism: An Evaluation of David B. Barrett's Research Methodology, in Michael Wilkinson & Jörg Haustein's The Pentecostal World (Routledge, 2023, pp. 457-471). It criticises the methodologies of David B. Barrett, a Welsh Anglican priest and the creator of the WCE, which were used to compile the WCE itself. Todd M. Johnson and Gina A. Zurlo, who are also mentioned in the essay and are the theorists and directors of "Global Christianity" studies at the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, are otherwise the continuators of the WCE in the form of the WRD/WCD.

Within the essay, the author elaborates: <... what I call the “Pentecostal growth paradigm,” initially promulgated by David B. Barrett, and now ubiquitous within the field of Pentecostal studies, as well as four common critiques of the paradigm ... the complicated typology conceptualized by Barrett in the first edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia in order to classify and measure Pentecostals around the world ... the – very limited – information that Barrett provides regarding the data collection techniques that he used to gather the data contained in the first edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia ... the construct validity threats contained within Barrett’s typology of Pentecostalism and data collection techniques, which, I argue, provide sufficient evidence to substantiate previous claims that the Pentecostal growth paradigm lacks the methodological rigor required to provide valid research results ...> (p. 457).

Other quotes:

• pp. 457-458: Stewart explains that some Christian authors have pushed for: <... a trend of steadily increasing estimates of global Pentecostal adherence ranging anywhere from 250 to 694 million ... The genealogy of this authorial ritual can be traced back to David B. Barrett’s original attempt to enumerate all of the various forms of global Christianity published in the first edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia in 1982, which, he argued, revealed the substantial numerical growth of Pentecostalism between 1968 and 1981. This is confirmed by Johnson who writes that “virtually all estimates for the number of Pentecostals in the world are related to Barrett’s initial detailed work”. Barrett persisted in this project for another two decades, which was continued by his closest academic successors, namely, Todd M. Johnson and, more recently, Gina A. Zurlo, who continue to record the ostensibly boundless growth of Pentecostalism around the world, a perspective which I refer to here as the Pentecostal growth paradigm ...>;
• p. 458: He explains that such a paradigm was adopted and fueled by church leaders: <... who flaunted estimates of Pentecostal growth in an attempt to legitimate their particular religious organizations, proselytistic efforts, beliefs, and/or practices. Non-Pentecostal scholars of Pentecostalism, of course, also played no small role in reifying the Pentecostal growth paradigm. Estimates of the dramatic numerical growth of Pentecostalism served “to legitimate their work among their disciplinary peers who largely understood Pentecostalism as either a social compensatory mechanism for the poor, uneducated, and oppressed or – from the opposite perspective – an oppressive form of cultural imperialism that homogenizes vulnerable poor and uneducated global populations” ...>, and explains that <Some scholars of Pentecostalism – even when sometimes citing the continually ballooning estimates of global Pentecostalism themselves – are critical of the Pentecostal growth paradigm, and, especially, of Barrett’s contribution to this discourse. In my review of the academic literature, I detect four common critiques of the Pentecostal growth paradigm. First are concerns that Barrett’s early research methodology might not have been sufficiently sophisticated to provide valid results. Second is the charge that Barrett’s use of the three waves metaphor carries an ahistorical, Americentric, and teleological bias ... Third, is a more specific critique closely related to the more general second critique, which asserts that, although the increasing prevalence of Pentecostal adherence around the world is not seriously debated by scholars of Pentecostalism, a significant portion of increasing Pentecostal growth estimates are the result of definitional sprawl rather than an increase in the actual number of adherents ...>;
• p. 459: He cites, amongst others: <Allan Anderson, who has characterized Barrett’s estimates of global Pentecostalism as, variously, “wild guesses,” “debatable,” “inaccurate or inflated,” “considerably inflated,” “wildly speculative” “controversial and undoubtedly inflated,” “inflated wild guesses,” and “statistical speculations” ...>;
• p. 463: <Barrett’s description of the data collection techniques that he used in order to gather the data contained in the frst edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia was incredibly short – just two paragraphs ... Another notable characteristic of the data collection techniques employed by Barrett is a very liberal approach to estimation. He wrote, for instance, “The word ‘approximately’ is the operative word in this survey; absolute precision and accuracy are not to be expected, nor in fact are they necessary for practical working purposes. This means that although the tables and other statistics may help readers who want specific individual figures, they are mainly designed to give the general-order picture set in the total national and global context. To this end, where detailed local statistics compiled from grass-roots sources have not been available or were incomplete, the tables supply general-order estimates provided by persons familiar with the local statistical situation.” Barrett even admits to extrapolating estimates of the total national populations of those Christian organizations that largely recorded only either child (e.g., Catholics who mainly record baptized infants) or adult (e.g., Baptists who mainly record confessing adults) adherents. He explained, “the missing figure … has been estimated and added either by the churches themselves or the editors.” Barrett explained, for instance, that he estimated the total number of Catholic adherents within a country “by multiplying total affiliated Catholics (baptized plus catechumens) by the national figure for the percentage of the population over 14 years old”.>;
• p. 464: Stewart comments that: <... his [Barrett's] cavalier approach to data collection and estimation raise significant red flags regarding the validity of his work.>;
• p. 467: <The presence of significant monomethod bias represents a catastrophic failure of Barrett’s research design, which, as a result, does not meet the minimum standards of valid social scientific research. In addition to this more fundamental construct validity threat, the first edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia also contains evidence of five other threats to construct validity relating to data collection techniques, namely, reactivity to the experimental situation, experimenter expectancies, attention and contact with participants, cues of the experimental situation, and timing of measurement.>;
• p. 468, Stewart concludes: Unfortunately, the research methodology employed by Barrett – specifically his typology of Pentecostalism and data collection techniques – was simply too flawed in order to provide valid social scientific research results that can be trusted and longitudinally or geographically compared. My analysis confirms Anderson’s claim that, “Scholars should no longer assume that there are some 600 million pentecostals in the world without further qualification”>.

I have also found further older papers containing negative critiques of the WCE and its successors:

• Marta Reynal-Querol & José G. Montalvo's A Theory of Religious Conflict and its Effect on Growth (Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, 2000). On p. 10 we read: <For the sake of comparison we also collected data directly from the World Christian Encyclopedia (WCE) using its division of groups. This data set has the advantage of being a time series, providing information for 1970, 1975 and 1980. However, as we pointed out before, this source has several shortcomings. ... Comparing to the other source of information we realize the data is biased towards Christian religion. ... The distribution of religious groups between 1970 and 1980 does not change in many countries. There are only about seventeen countries that present change in proportions. But those changes occur in countries where there is double practice and they usually imply an increase in the percentage of Christians ... Because of these reasons we take the data coming from the WCE with a lot of caution.>.
• Andrew McKinnon's "Christians, Muslims and Traditional Worshippers in Nigeria: Estimating the Relative Proportions from Eleven Nationally Representative Social Surveys", Review of Religious Research, 63(2): 303-315 (Sage, 2021). In it we read: <... those assessments that make use of multiple sources of data, such as the World Christian Database (WCD), have not tended to make their calculations publicly transparent, nor clarified how they have squared the differences between contrasting indicators.>; <Figures in the most recent edition of The World Christian Encyclopedia (Johnson and Zurlo 2020) draw on figures assembled and updated as part of the World Christian Database (WCD) ... None of the particular calculations are provided, nor is there any accounting for methodological decisions in any particular case; neither transparency nor replicability are in evidence, which makes social scientific evaluation of how they reached their conclusions impossible.>; <... they also note that the Database does seem to overestimate the Christian identification, and expressed concern about what appears to be uncritical acceptance of figures provided by religious groups of their membership. With reference to one denomination in Nigeria McKinnon (2020) has recently found evidence that supports the criticisms offered by Hsu et al (2008). WCD estimates for Anglican identification in Nigeria were found to be dramatically over-estimated due to The Church of Nigeria's un-evidenced membership claims.>

--Æo (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that Wilkinson & Haustein argue there are meaningful flaws in the methodology of Barrett and WCE. This criticism in a reliable source of the demographic methodology and technique is the first indication to me that there is substantial reason to be cautious about using these sources. (I remain unconvinced that the socioreligious affiliations of certain authors and editors is as much reason for alarm as you have seemed to imply.)

With Wilkinson & Haustein's detailed criticism focusing on Pentecostal demographics, would we say that additional considerations must be taken when citing WCE for specifically Pentecostal demographics?

For now, I will pause my earlier musing that WCE/WRD/WCD could be re-assessed to "Generally reliable" and would consent to them being left listed as "Additional considerations". I would suggest the description in the table be changed to emphasize that the reason for such an assessment is that reliable sources have criticized the sources on methodological grounds and that the demographic conclusions require "further qualification". P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Context matters here.

These databases are global debases from academic publishers and they provide useful data that others simply do not have. All major undertakings like this will have some methodological issues and no survey or census is immune to it. No survey or census is definitive on religion. All provide pieces of the puzzle. Two examples one on another global demographic attempt and another on a country:

Actual estimates on the "atheism" demographics show how multiple surveys do not agree on the numbers or method per each country or globally. There are many reasons why this would be the case - countries vary in understanding of religion and diverse methods each one contains. For example you would think that determining atheist rates is easy (yes/no) but its more complicated. Zuckerman's study (Cambridge Companion to Atheism) [31] states "Determining what percentage of a given society believes in God – or doesn’t -- is fraught with methodological hurdles. First: low response rates; most people do not respond to surveys, and response rates of lower than 50% cannot be generalized to the wider society. Secondly: non-random samples. If the sample is not randomly selected – i.e., every member of the given population has an equal chance of being chosen -- it is non-generalizable. Third: adverse political/cultural climates. In totalitarian countries where atheism is governmentally promulgated and risks are present for citizens viewed as disloyal, individuals will be reluctant to admit that they do believe in God. Conversely, in societies where religion is enforced by the government and risks are present for citizens viewed as non-believers, individuals will be reluctant to admit that they don’t believe in Allah, regardless of whether anonymity is “guaranteed.” Even in democratic societies without governmental coercion, individuals often feel that it is necessary to say that are religious, simply because such a response is socially desirable or culturally appropriate."

At the end he had to sift through a grip of surveys his estimate ranges from 500 million 750 million atheists worldwide from this paper. Pretty wide range. His country by country ranges are complex in p. 15-17 using numerous databases. WCE and even Operation World are used in a few without issues by Zuckerman.

Even the census data can show wide divergence with other surveys in other countries like Britain. Voas and Bruce (2004) "Research note: The 2001 census and christian identification in Britain" [32] state "Results from the 2001 population census suggest that nearly 72% of people in England and Wales may be identified as Christian. This figure is substantially higher than the proportion found by the British Social Attitudes survey and other national studies. It is also higher than the broad estimates of the size of the ‘Christian community’ previously produced by the Christian Research Association, the leading source of religious statistics in the UK (Brierley, 2003:2.2)." And even note issues with census data collection ”Another problem seems more serious. Unlike opinion polls which ask questions directly of respondents, census forms are generally completed by one individual on behalf of the entire household. There is no rule about who should take responsibility, but typically it is the head of household or at least a senior member of it."

On the WCE, The Andrew McKinnon's source does state The editors of the World Christian Encyclopedia provide reasonable methodological reflections on the different sources upon which scholars may draw in order to estimate the different religious populations of the world, as well as some of the issues that crop up as one tries to reconcile sources that disagree (Johnson and Zurlo 2020: 897–914)."

And the Marta Reynal-Querol & José G. Montalvo source does say ”For the sake of comparison we also collected data directly from the World Christian Enciclopedia (WCE) using its division of groups. This data set has the advantage of being a time series, providing information for 1970, 1975 and 1980.”

Other sources like Hsu et al. 2008 deal with methodology directly and state [33] state "Scholars have raised questions about the WCD's estimates categories, and potential bias, but the data have not yet been systematically assessed. We test the reliability of the WCD by comparing its religious composition estimates to four other data sources (World Values Survey, Pew Global Assessment Project,CIA World Factbook, and the U.S. Department of State), finding that estimates are highly correlated....Religious composition estimates in the WCD are generally plausible and consistent with other data sets."

For WRD "Given the limitations of censuses, including incomplete and irregular global coverage, potential political bias swaying the findings and the absences of many religious groups from censuses, any religious demographic analysis must consult multiple sources.[34] They state their sources which include census and surveys as well and say they are transparent to the scholarly community p. 1. Ramos1990 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ramos,

Regarding your claim that these databases are global debases from academic publishers and they provide useful data that others simply do not have: this is simply false; there are statistics produced by national censuses, national statistical institutes, and independent reliable survey organisations. Regarding your claim that no survey or census is definitive on religion: censuses are official countings of the characteristics of the whole population of a country, and in the case they have any shortcomings there are other surveys produced by national statistical organisations or independent reliable survey organisations. "Independent reliable" organisations necessarily means non-confessional, non-missionary, non-evangelistic, while "survey" organisations necessarily means that they actually conduct polls among populations. The WCE/WRD/WCD, given the evidence, is neither the first, nor the second thing.

Regarding Zuckerman's study of worldwide atheism, I do not understand what it has to do with the case being discussed here: Zuckerman does not claim that his study is a census, and in any case I would not use it in Wikipedia articles in place of census statistics. Regarding Voas & Bruce's research, I also don't understand what it has to do with our case: statistics from the British Social Attitudes Survey and the Christian Research Association have never been given precedence either in Wikipedia or elsewhere over census statistics. I think that the 2001 British census finding that 72% of the population identified themselves as Christian was correct, and in any case their number has shrunken to 59% by the 2011 census, and to 46% by the 2021 census; I trust that these are the correct proportions of self-identifying Christians within the British population in the three census periods.

Regarding your excerpt from McKinnon's paper, it continues with the sentence that I already quoted above: None of the particular calculations are provided, nor is there any accounting for methodological decisions in any particular case; neither transparency nor replicability are in evidence, which makes social scientific evaluation of how they reached their conclusions impossible..

Regarding your excerpt from Reynal-Querol & Montalvo's paper, it continues with the following conclusions, also already partially quoted above: However, as we pointed out before, this source has several shortcomings. First, and probably the most important, the data does not consider the possibility of double practice, very common in Sub Saharan Africa and Latin America countries. Comparing to the other source of information we realize the data is biased towards Christian religion. A clear example is the case of Kenya in which the distribution of religions is considered to be similar to Spain or Italy. The distribution of religious groups between 1970 and 1980 does not change in many countries. There are only about seventeen countries that present change in proportions. But those changes occur in countries where there is double practice and they usually imply an increase in the percentage of Christians and a reduction in the size of animist followers. Because of these reasons we take the data coming from the WCE with a lot of caution..

Regarding Hsu et al., their full paper can be read here, it was already widely quoted in the 2022-2023 discussion and it is mostly critical of the WCE/WRD/WCD. I hope it is not necessary to repeat the same findings already explained in the 2022-2023 discussion. However, your quote is missing the following parts: ... however, the WCD does have higher estimates of percent Christian within countries. ... we find that WCD estimates of American Christian groups are generally higher than those based on surveys and denominational statistics. ... the WCD counts tiny religious minorities, classifies some Muslim groups within the neoreligionist and ethnoreligionist categories, and has higher numbers of nonreligious. (p. 680); the conclusions about correlation with other datasets: ... the WCD tends to overestimate percent Christian relative to the other data sets. Scatterplots show that the majority of the points lie above the y - x line, indicating the WCD estimate for percent Christian within countries is generally higher than the other estimates. Although the bias is slight, it is consistent, and consequently, the WCD estimates a higher ratio of Christians in the world. (p. 684); and the final conclusions: We find some evidence for the three main criticisms directed at the WCD regarding estimation, ambiguous religious categories, and bias. The WCD consistently gives a higher estimate for percent Christian in comparison to other cross-national data sets. ... We also found evidence of overestimation when we compared WCD data on American denominational adherence to American survey data such as ARIS, due in part to inclusion of children, and perhaps also to uncritical acceptance of estimates from religious institutions. ... we find the WCD likely underestimates percent Muslim in former Communist countries and countries with popular syncretistic and traditional religions. ... Data on percent nonreligious are not highly correlated among the five data sets..

Regarding the WRD's own methodology paper, it is a self-published source (n.b. Brian J. Grim is another member of the Gordon-Conwell team) and it is quite simply false that they use census statistics; their data definitely do not correspond to the statistics provided by censuses. This is obvious and anyone can demonstrate it, given that census statistics are public and accessible to anyone. Stewart's paper (p. 463) also mentions census statistics dated 1900 to the 1970s, which are obviously obsolete, and some improbable unpublished data from “unprocessed” or “incomplete” national censuses. Æo (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: We must also remember and underline another important, critical point, which is that WCE/WRD/WCD data are speculative projections (WP:CRYSTAL) ranging from 1900 to 2050, not even survey outcomes, actually. Æo (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

P-Makoto, I would agree with your proposal to add that "reliable sources have criticized the sources on methodological grounds and that the demographic conclusions require further qualification" to the description in the table.

I would not restrict the scope of the source to Pentecostalism alone, however, owing to the fuzzy definition of Pentecostalism itself (cf. Stewart) and to the fact that its alleged 600+ million adherents, purported by the sources being discussed here, add a lot to the overall number of Protestants and Christians worldwide, and also owing to the fact that (cf. Stewart; Reynal-Querol & Montalvo; McKinnon) this demographic "athorial ritual" (as Stewart calls it) apparently originated among Anglicans and also involves the overestimation, and often self-overestimation, of the populations of other Christian denominations, including Anglicans themselves and Catholics, and therefore of Christians as a whole.

I would also agree with your proposal that the source be kept in the "additional considerations" category; otherwise, if other users think it would be more appropriate to downgrade it to the "generally unreliable" or even "deprecated" category (given the continuous spam campaigns of which they are, and will likely continue to be, the subject), I would agree with them. Æo (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I would not agree with downgrading the sources under discussion to "Generally unreliable" or "Deprecated". I have proposed neither, and I oppose both.

You would not restrict the scope of the source to Pentecostalism. But why then does the author make Pentecostalism and the "Pentecostal growth paradigm" the scope of the argument? I would be more comfortable being cautious about how far we extrapolate those conclusions.

To clarify, I do not mean to simply add "reliable sources have criticized the sources on methodological grounds and that the demographic conclusions require further qualification" to the description in the table. Rather, I would propose replacing the present description in the table with such a sentence. The current description of editors considering the source WP:PARTISAN etc. is based on editor assessments, rather than reliable secondary sources. There is not consensus on whether or not the sources are partisan. But perhaps there can be consensus that a reliable source has said that the projections require further qualification and have methodological flaws. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

P-Makoto,

I agree the depreciation is unreasonable. But I certainly would question the Petacostal paper when Hsu et al. 2008 [35] clearly does an actual wider assessment and concludes "To address the criticisms mentioned above, we compare the religious composition estimates in the WCD to four other cross-national data sets on religious composition (two survey-based data sets and two government-sponsored data sets): the World Values Survey (WVS), the Pew Global Attitudes Project (Pew), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the U.S. State Department (State Department). In our analysis, we find support for some of the criticisms made by reviewers, but on the whole we find that WCD estimates are generally consistent with other data sets. The WCD is highly correlated with the other data sets, estimates for percent Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu; however, the WCD does have higher estimates of percent Christian within countries." and "In sum, we find that the WCD religious composition data are highly correlated with other sources that offer cross-national religious composition estimates. For cross-national studies, the WCD may be more useful than other sources of data because of the inclusion of the largest number of countries, different time periods, and information on all, even small, religious groups.”

Additionally, Hsu 2008 also explicitly says "We ran correlations of the five data sets with each other on the percentage of adherents to the major world religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism) as well as the nonreligious (Table 2). The WCD is highly correlated with the other four data sets, with most correlations near 0.90, which suggests that its data for percent Christian, percent Muslim, percent Buddhist, and percent Hindu are generally reliable.

Also I think that there are methodological issues with other sources like census data as is exemplified with Britain. Many countries do not even have religion questions on the census either. But no one tries to depreciate those sources. It seems too much to require more from WCE than other sources when the evidence shows it is reliable and consistent with other databases on the whole.

I think removing partisan and leaving the wording as is for in text attribution makes more sense for middle ground on the table.

Also these databases are respected by diversity of scholars and authoritative sources such as scholars of Islam (e.g. The Oxford Handbook of Politics in Muslim Societies (2022)), scholars of nonreligion / irreligion (e.g. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion: Volume 7 (2016)), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (2007)), Pew Research Center's uses it in own methodology and database (see Pew's methodology, The Palgrave Handbook of Islam in Africa (2020)) and also Oxford Handbook of Mission Studies (2022), Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion (2011), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Europe (2022)

- Woodberry, Robert D. (2010). "World Religion Database: Impressive - but Improvable" [36] - "Despite these criticisms, we can appreciate the editors’ achievement in applying a relatively consistent methodology across the world. Furthermore, the WRD estimates are highly correlated with other cross-national estimates of religious distribution, a conclusion supported by an article by Becky Hsu and others." and also "Still, despite my criticisms, I will eagerly use these data in my research. I do not know of any better data available on such a broad scale and am amazed at the editors’ ability to provide even tentative estimates of religious distribution by province and people group."

- Brierley, Peter. (2010). "World Religion Database: Detail Beyond Belief!" [37] - "The WRD is a truly remarkable resource for researchers, Christian workers, church leaders, religious academics, and any others wanting to see how the various religions of the world impact both the global and the local scenes. It is always easy to criticize any grand compilation of statistical material by looking at the detail in one particular corner and declaring, "That number doesn't seem right." The sheer scope of this database, however, is incredible, and the fact that it exists and can be extended even further and updated as time goes forward in the framework of a respected university deserves huge applause for those responsible for it. Praise where praise is due, even if I am about to critique it."

If it is good for demographers it certainly good for Wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 Those are old sources. Have you evidence the situation is the same 13 or more years later? Doug Weller talk 15:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Well, not sure if you looked at the Handbooks I linked, but some are from the 2020s. For example here is an extract of an authoritative source The Palgrave Handbook of Islam in Africa (2020):"The 2010 Pew Report is notable in terms of its comprehensive research design. Pew utilizes demographic sources from the World Religion Database as well as extensive survey data for nineteen African states. This mixed methods design of both quantitative and qualitative sources is important because it provides a substantive way to ground truth our understanding of religious affiliations and attitudes. Published demographic data alone on religion is usually drawn from censuses which can be fraught with design problems, but Pew utilizes field tested, empirical observations." Ramos1990 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you realise that that book is discussing the Pew Research Center, and that the WRD is just mentioned in a note about the sources upon which the Pew builds its estimates? The book is neither citing the WRD directly nor discussing it. And the Pew's own criteria about its use of WRD data have already been quoted in my <19:44, 6 January> comment below. Æo (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It does not need to. It merely incudes it as part of its positive assessment of the quantitative (WRD) and qualitative (survey data) combination. It certainly does not support your view at all (that is its worthless and useless). Pew's methodology page does not either. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

P-Makoto,

In my opinion the outcome of the previous community consensus should not be altered, and Firefangledfeather's closing summary should be kept, with its reference to WP:PARTISAN, or WP:BIASED, and WP:CRYSTAL, and just altered to add your new sentence, possibly also adding Stewart's conclusion that the source lacks the methodological rigor required to provide valid research results, and a reference to the fact that these results systematically overestimate Christianity (as found by all the critical papers quoted above) and underestimate other religions (as found by Hsu et al.). Regarding WP:BIASED, I think that it is important to keep it because in my view it is quite clear that the source is biased; for me, the relationship that it has with the OW-JP, its origins as a Christian missionary project, the fact that it is edited by the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (which, by the way, is itself directly related to Billy Graham and his Lausanne Movement), are all indicators of a clear bias, and in any case, this is clearly stated by Reynal-Querol & Montalvo where they wrote we realize the data is biased towards Christian religion.

Moreover, in his essay, p. 459, Stewart further explains that Barrett directly addresses and emphatically rejects what he calls the “folly of triumphalism” ... Despite this assurance, Barrett’s occupation as a missionary, stated belief that all of the world would be evangelized by the end of the twentieth century, and, not least of all, his development of a “theology of Christian enumeration” that explains the purpose of his work as helping “the followers of Christ to discern at what points to commit their resources in order to implement their commission” serve to make this, probably, the least debatable criticism ... The particular strength of this last critique might also possibly explain why, in his recent dismissal of the critiques commonly levied against Barrett’s work, Johnson [of the GCTS] elects not to address the accusation of triumphalism..

The previous quote adds to both the problem of non-neutrality, bias, of the source and to the question of the scope of the source. In his own words, Barrett theorised a "theology of Christian enumeration", not of Pentecostal enumeration. Furthermore, Stewart on p. 460 is clear when he writes that: To describe Barrett’s enumeration of Pentecostals – let alone of Christians as a whole – in the first edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia as confusing would be a drastic understatement. Guiding the entire work is Barrett’s conceptualization of Christianity ...; and again on p. 466: Barrett's ... collection techniques in order to enumerate Pentecostals and other Christians around the world. Therefore, Barret's project affects Christianity as a whole, and not merely Pentecostalism. Stewart clept it "Pentecostal growth paradigm" apparently because such a paradigm was ... adopted and more widely disseminated by Pentecostal clergy and scholars – mostly in the Global North ... (p. 458). This is probably a reference to the OW and its affiliated networks; I remind that the book Operation World (2010, p. 25) declares that ... the World Christian Encyclopedia and a handful of other resources are at the heart of this information ....

Of course you have not proposed to classify the source as "generally unreliable" or "deprecated", I did not mean that, but I would propose it if any other users agreed, since this would help stem the ongoing spam of this source throughout Wikipedia (which has continued despite its addition to the perennial sources' list last year). Æo (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Considering the discussion here, which is very quite long, I concur with the original 2022-2023 consensus against depreciation of these sources. They are definitely used by academic researchers and the sources presented do verify that they are good for use in Wikipedia. Robert D. Woodberry's confirmation of Hsu findings of general reliability across 4 datasets are certainly notable here as multiple sources converge on overall reliability. Keeping in mind that there are many problems with all sources including census data (WRD methodology states that only about half of the world's censuses even ask about religion and that this is declining further) certainly means that many other sources need to be used by default. This is verifiable in the US, which has nothing on religion for so many decades. And numerous other nations have removed such questions for privacy and expense reasons.

I do see room for BOTH (World Christian Encyclopedia and World Religion Database/World Christian Database) and numerous other databases to be used on Wikipedia. After all, these are all just estimates at the end and the Pentecostal and Atheism examples here exhibit the need to use multiple sources to make some sense of adherents (upper and lower estimates). I will say that polls, surveys, etc also fail to predict verifiable things like political elections [38] so I can only imagine the difficulty in religion demographics.

I think a good median on the perennial table is to keep the wording as is minus "The methodology of these sources has been questioned as WP:PARTISAN and WP:CRYSTAL." since these pass on comparison with multiple other datasets. Twice with this noticeboard by the same proposer AEO. The wording would sound neutral, very basic, inclusive, and not too specific. "Preference" does not mean "removal" or "prohibited". It allows coexistence of sources. Thus I think this is reasonable. desmay (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

After all, these are all just estimates – No, there are precise statistics from censuses and national surveys, possibly integrated by other good-quality statistics from independent neutral survey organisations, for most countries. We do not need speculative projections from non-neutral organisations of Christian evangelism. But this has already been widely discussed. The WCE/WRD/WCD are regularly spammed on Wikipedia and this causes a lot of nuisance for editors in the field of religion statistics like me, Erp and others (see here, here, etc.).

... polls, surveys, etc also fail to predict verifiable things like political elections so I can only imagine the difficulty in religion demographics – Actually, I think that a cultural identifier such as religion is much more verifiable and measurable than fleeting opinions such as political votes.

Twice with this noticeboard by the same proposer AEO – I did not open the 2022-2023 discussion myself, and, in any case, what is the problem? I also opened a discussion about WP:STATISTA last year, which resulted in its categorisation as WP:GUNREL. I read a lot, I noticed that the WCE/WRD/WCD were still being spammed throughout Wikipedia, I found new evidence of their problematic nature (the new papers presented in this discussion), and therefore I decided to open this new discussion. Æo (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Taking in what has been said so far, at this time, for WRD/WCD/WCE, I am inclined to support user desmay's recommendations. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Me too. I think it is a balanced recommendation. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to partially correct what I expressed in my <00:08, 5 January> previous comment, given that the clause with a reference to WP:PARTISAN and WP:CRYSTAL was not present in Firefangledfeather's original closing summary, but was added by Folly Mox when they created the entry in the perennial sources' list. Yet, the new evidence (Stewart et al.) introduced with the present discussion fully justifies Folly Mox's addition, and I continue to support P-Makoto's original proposal to add a further sentence as expressed in her <10:25, 4 January> comment, and my own proposal of further additions and of category re-assessment as expressed in my <00:08, 5 January> comment, rather than desmay's proposal to return to the original closing summary. Æo (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I placed the entry at the RSP table because I had to do some citation repair regarding these sources, I think at List of religious populations. I've found that most places these are cited in articles seem to be infoboxes and tables, which don't lend themselves easily to additional explanations about methodology etc. My sample may not reflect the total citation population.

The words I used in the entry at RSP (the only one I've ever added) were probably intended to be a summary of the close of the lengthy enormous discussion. I have no objection to the wording being changed if I've misconstrued the conversation or the close. I'm not sure if I see Firefangledfeathers bluelinked above, so courtesy ping in case they have input. Folly Mox (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I continue to support P-Makoto's original proposal to add a further sentence

I believe this misrepresentation is accidental on Æo's part, but it is a misrepresentation of me. It was never my original proposal to add a sentence. It was my proposal that the description in the table be changed (bolding added), which I later clarified to replacing the present description in the table (bolding addeed). Any proposal which merely adds a sentence about a reliable source identifying methodological flaws while retaining the reference to WP:PARTISAN and WP:CRYSTAL would be contrary to my original position in this discussion. Such a proposal originates from someone other than myself; I suppose it would be best described as Æo's proposal, inspired by an inadvertent misunderstanding of my proposal.

Additionally, my current position (as I expressed in this diff), is support of desmay's proposal: keep the wording as is minus "The methodology of these sources has been questioned as WP:PARTISAN and WP:CRYSTAL."

I think the reference to WP:PARTISAN and WP:CRYSTAL in the table as it exists is not a consensus assessment by editors. See statements in the above discussion from myself, desmay, and Ramos1990 for examples of editor expressing consideration of the WRD, WCD, and WCE to be academically valid.

It is also not consensus that the sources are unquestionable; Æo and Erp have made clear their impression of the sources as unreliable.

"Additional considersations" seems to be an appropriate assessment, inasmuch as there is not consensus for "Generally reliable" or "Generally unreliable". P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the close of the RFC by Firefalgledfeathers did not include partisan and crystal phrase. Since Folly Mox is ok with restoring the close wording. We can remove that phrase. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's not rush things. The discussion has only been open for a few days, and few people have taken part in it as of today. Moreover, Folly Mox has written that they would have no objection to the wording being changed if they had misconstrued the conversation or the close. And I think they have not misconstrued the essence of the 2022-2023 conversation. Æo (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Folly Mox: "The words I used in the entry at RSP (the only one I've ever added) were probably intended to be a summary of the close of the lengthy enormous discussion." and pinged closer Firefalgledfeathers. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

P-Makoto,

Apologies. I originally misunderstood your use of the word "change" as implying a change by addition and not by replacement, but your clarification in your <21:22, 4 January> comment was already very clear. What I meant with my previous message is that I would support the addition of the clause formulated in your original proposal, together with other critical considerations, to the current description formulated by Folly Mox, keeping the latter as it is. Also notice that other users took part, and expressed their opinions, in the 2022-2023 discussion.

I opened the present discussion to provide further evidence, from new critical essays, about the questionability of the sources under discussion; let's focus on the merits of the new evidence provided, rather than on quibbles about the current description in the perennial sources' list. Æo (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I have considered the new evidence presented. Seeing the new evidence presented prompted my earlier expressed decision to withdraw my suggestion to re-assess WRD/WCD/WCE as "Generally reliable" to instead support their assessment as "Additional considerations" (see my comment containing For now, I will pause my earlier musing that WCE/WRD/WCD could be re-assessed to "Generally reliable" and would consent to them being left listed as "Additional considerations". P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest:

There is no consensus on the reliability of these data sources. Rough consensus developed that the sources should be used with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources. Some editors questioned their methodology and consider them to be partisan.

The order and tone matches many other "no consensus" RSP listings. The partisan issue was discussed more thoroughly than the point about their projections, but I wouldn't strenuously fight against including a short mention of the latter. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Firefangledfeathers, I am not sure this captures everything form both sides because multiple editors are also not convinced of partisan and multiple editors think the methodology is appropriate and consistent with multiple databases (sources and quotes for those provided too). Even in the original RFC you closed, the same thing happened (most said "No" to depreciation 10 vs 5). Ramos1990 (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

As you look through RSP, you don't see a lot of "... but others disagreed". I think we just briefly state the most impactful concern, so that it's considered in future discussions when evaluating the source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

On second thought, I'd support including a brief statement about one strength of the sources. The one that stands out the most to me in the prior discussion is that these data sources are so commonly cited by high-quality sources. Something like:

There is no consensus on the reliability of these data sources. Rough consensus developed that the sources should be used with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources. Some editors noted that data from these sources is commonly used by high-quality publications, while others questioned their methodology and consider them to be partisan.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that! I support this balanced version. It captures both sides and the sources that were used in this discussion and the RFC you closed. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to hear out some thoughts on this, and to reword the description. This version has improvement that I appreciate. I am inclined to suggest rephrasing "commonly used by high quality publications" to instead say "numerous high-quality publications"? It's a subtle difference, but there are high quality publications in topics unrelated to religious demographics that don't use these sources, so to say a source is commonly cited in high quality publications feels not quite on the mark. Saying that editors have noted that they are used in numerous high-quality publications, that seems fair and demonstrably true. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. Not looking to make this change too soon, so you (and any others) should feel free to suggest changes or propose alternatives. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

P-Makoto, works for me too. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I continue the discussion, with an alternative proposal, further below. Æo (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm leaning in agreement with AEo here, that the summary by FFF should be retained and editors cautioned about using these as sources. The issues over methodology are compounded by the real concern of religious advocacy/promotion/bias raised by Stewart and others. I'm also of the opinion that the very limited use of WRD by Pew Research is rather telling: they opt to cite it (as one among several databases) only in circumstances where basically no census/survey or granular data exist, rather than incorporating WRD reports into all of their estimates. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Pew uses WRD for 57 countries at least. That is a good chunk. Considering that they use "large scale demographic surveys" for 43 countries, and "general population surveys" for 42 countries, it is quite useful to complete the picture for their global estimates. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Look at which countries though... It is a rather limited use. I would not lean on Pew to establish reliability for this source, I'd find someone who actually endorses it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have multiple academic sources in purple and stuff like recent Handbooks above on it. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

But those 57 countries comprise only 5% of the population covered. JoelleJay (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Religious demography is about studying different countries and the beliefs of the people there. I am sure you will agree that each country is a different culture with diverse beliefs and histories and that these people matter - no matter how much on a global scale they are. Approximately 4.6 billion people live in ten countries, representing around 57% of the world's population [39]. I don't think that looking at only 10 out of 232 countries are representative of the cultures of the the remaining 222. China and India alone are 38% of the world population (~3 billion). Besides if you you calculate 5% out 8 billion, its 400,000,000 people from 57 nations with diverse cultures, histories, and beliefs. That is substantial and researchers do not just throw their hands up and ignore them. Most of nonreligion research focuses in Western nonreligious populations (Europe (12%), North America (5%)), but the overwhelming majority of the nonreligious are in Asia and in particular China alone (76%) from Pew. I don't think North America should be ignored just because it is 5% of the global nonreligious population. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It's 5% of the population because for that 5% Pew couldn't find any other sources besides WRD and some other databases. If WRD was being treated as completely reliable by Pew they would incorporate WRD data into the other 95% of their estimates. JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Pew does not go by % people. It goes by Countries (25% of their countries used WRD, whereas large surveys (18%), general surveys (18%), and census (38%)). Good coverage. Each country has different understanding of religion and instruments of measure are diverse. You can read Pew's methodology to see that they say they used multiple quantitative and multiple qualitative sources for each country. Its inevitable because all sources are limited. Pew says "variation in methods among censuses and surveys (including sampling, question wording, response categories and period of data collection) can lead to variation in results". So adjustments need to be made (e.g. one source may have some data and but another source may have the missing data, but needs a third source to refine everything). In general there are 3 broad categories for religion (belief, belonging, and behavior). Some sources may have affiliation data, but not belief, or they may have belief data, but low sampling or poor wording. To keep it short, see Zuckerman in purple text, where he shows examples of massive hurdles to get a usable count on the number of atheists in any given country. Sometimes researches use more math to standardize (weighted or non-weighted). In any case, WRD is a database and it collects sources and is just one tool, among others, that researchers of every stripe do use. You can see the WRD methodology. It is available, not hidden. Also it used on continental Europe [40] by others. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

In the methodology you linked previously, Pew says Together, censuses or surveys provided estimates for 175 countries representing 95% of the world’s population. In the remaining 57 countries, representing 5% of the world’s population, the primary sources for the religious-composition estimates include population registers and institutional membership statistics reported in the World Religion Database and other sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Pew breaks it down further "Censuses were the primary source for Pew Forum religious composition estimates in 90 countries, which together cover 45% of all people in the world. Large-scale demographic surveys were the primary sources for an additional 43 countries, representing 12% of the global population. General population surveys were the primary source of data for an additional 42 countries, representing 37% of the global population." With 57 countries for WRD, they covered more countries than large scale demographic surveys (43 countries), and general population surveys (42 countries). Population wise, large scale demographic surveys (43 countries) was 12% of the global population, which is very comparable to WRD. Of course % of people covered is irrelevant because each country has different practices and beliefs, histories (religious beliefs from China and India do not reflect most of the world despite them being 38% of the global population.) It would be odd to dismiss 57 countries out of 232, 43 countries out of 232, 42 countries out of 232, or 90 out of 232. They also state "Pew Forum researchers acquired and analyzed religious composition information from about 2,500 data sources, including censuses, demographic surveys, general population surveys and other studies – the largest project of its kind to date." Though I can see where you are coming from, I am afraid the view that there should be 1 magical super source that applies to all 232 countries is not quite possible. They had more than 10 times 232 sources analyzed and mathematically adjusted to come up with their final product for just 232 countries. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the proposal put forth by Firefangledfeathers and P-Makoto. It is neutral and on point. desmay (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

In her comments, Ramos quoted the abstract from Brierley's World Religion Database: Detail Beyond Belief! (2010) emphasising the author's seemingly positive evaluation of the source. However, reading through the essay one finds that in the conclusions the author points out that: ... This illustrates the dilemma for the compilers of the WCE and WRD. The Church of England may claim 26 million people, roughly the number living in the UK who have been baptized in the church either as infants or adults. The WRD treats this as their official source. However, not all of these now regard themselves as belonging to the Church of England and so did not tick the "Christian" box on the census form. Result? The WRD puts the Christian percent as 81 percent, the census as 72 percent, with the difference virtually entirely in the group of people who have left (as other research has shown). Which source should the WRD trust or use? This is their statistical nightmare, and the WRD in this instance opts for denominational information and does not judge between the two (though perhaps it should). This perhaps explains why some highly erudite commentators, such as Philip Jenkins, whose books on the world Christian scene have been so powerful and helpful, criticize the numbers in the WCE (and doubtless will those found in the WRD). Jenkins sometimes uses the CIA data instead, but there is no guarantee that that is more reliable.. This was written in 2010 with the data from the 2001 British census in mind; fourteen years later, things have not changed: compare WRD UK 2020 data with the 2021 UK census data.
The strength of the database, according to Brierley, merely consists in its unprecedented ... attempt on a worldwide basis to compile numbers for the different religions in a broadly compatible manner for each country.. Moreover, Brierley also concludes that: ... Christian and religious commentators have no option but to use it, despite hang-ups on definitions and individual numbers. ... These figures are not just for academic reflection and analysis but for strategic use and application. "Strategic use and application" refers to Christian mission, since Brierly is a Christian minister and/or missionary himself.
Ramos also quoted from Woodberry's World Religion Database: Impressive—but Improvable (2010); on the first page of the paper (unfortunately, I can't access the full text) we read: ... the editors seem to have constructed their estimates of religious distribution primarily from surveys of denominations and missionaries, not from censuses or representative surveys of individuals. Denominations, however, typically overestimate the number of members they have, and liturgical (and state-sponsored) denominations generally count anyone who has ever been baptized as a member—even infant baptisms of people who no longer claim Christian identity or attend church..
There is also another paper of the same series, Arles' World Religion Database: Realities and Concerns (2010), but I can't access its full text.
Brierley's, Woodberry's and Arles' papers were all published on the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, and Brierley, Arles and probably Woodberry as well, are/were Christian ministers and/or missionaries, and therefore I think it is important to underline that these papers belong to the Christian missionary environment to which the WCE/WRD/WCD itself belongs. Such papers are missionary sources which recommend the use of another missionary source, highlighting its strength as an unprecedented attempt to quantify the world's religious populations, while at the same time criticising its flaws. Other "high-quality publications" might be uncritical in their use of the WCE/WRD/WCD, and indeed essays like those of Brierley, Woodberry, Arles, and also Hsu et al., Stewart, and the others already discussed, were published precisely to warn against the uncritical use of such sources.
Liedhegener & Odermatt's Religious Affiliation in Europe (2013), already quoted in the 2022-2023 discussion, pointed out that (p. 9) the WCE/WRD/WCD ... is not an unproblematic source, because its data, gathered originally from the World Christian Encyclopedia, result mostly from country reports prepared by American missionaries. Therefore, a systematic bias of its data in favor of Christianity is a major, although controversial point of criticism..
As pointed out by JoelleJay hereabove, the Pew Research Center itself is very cautious in its use of WCE/WRD/WCD data, also considering that Pew mostly bases its studies on its own (real) surveys. On p. 53 of Pew's The Global Religious Landscape (2010) we read about their criteria for their use of WRD data: In cases where censuses and surveys lacked sufficient detail on minority groups, the estimates also drew on estimates provided by the World Religion Database, which takes into account other sources of information on religious affiliation, including statistical reports from religious groups themselves..
Folly Mox, in their <18:55, 5 January> comment, correctly warned that the WCE/WRD/WCD are still widely cited throughout Wikipedia in a great number of articles, mostly in infoboxes and tables and without further explanation about their nature, methodology and probable bias. This has been going on for years: many articles still uncritically report WCE/WRD/WCD data referenced to the ARDA or Gordon-Conwell websites; many of them are articles about countries and the data are reproduced directly in the country infobox, passed off as 2020 data despite the fact that they are speculative projections. Therefore, I think that it would be important that WP:CRYSTAL be mentioned in the description in the perennial sources' list.
That being said, my proposal for the description in the perennial sources' list is the following one:

There is no consensus on the reliability of these sources of data about religious populations, and concerns have been raised that they may be WP:BIASED and that they are WP:SPECULATIVE projections. Rough consensus developed that the sources should be used with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources (e.g. censuses and national surveys). While these data sources have been used in some high-quality publications, others have questioned their methodology and consider them to be partisan, and especially prone to an overestimation of Christianity.

Æo (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The RFC that Æo opened on this in 2022-2023 already had all of this commentary and MORE, and after all of that Firefangledfeathers was able to come up with a balanced closure wording to take into consideration ALL sides. I would say that Firefangledfeathers proposed wording, and P-Makoto's adjustment, is certainly very balanced and NPOV again and to the point. We should go with that as Firefangledfeathers is an uninvolved editor.

I also would just like to note that AEO seems to be an aggressive POV pusher against WCE/WRD/WCD sources. Seems to have an obsession to get these removed from wikipedia at any cost. To the point that he opened the 2022-2023 RFC and attempted to close it himself after the results were not in his favor (10 "No" vs 4 "Yes" - his count) with such biased wording emphasizing his view point and the minority and ignoring the majorities views (see here [41]). I thought that this opening and closing was unethical (conflict of interest) and requested an involved editor (see here [42]), which turned out to be Firefangledfeathers. His closure was much more balanced and at least took into consideration everyone's views (majority and minoirty) (see here [43]). As such, I do not trust AEO's POV pushing biased wording.

Based on this, I trust the uninvolved editor Firefangledfeathers balanced NPOV wording and P-Makoto's adjustment.

Addendum: Plus all of these quibbles were taken into account in Hsu 2008 - the only source to empirically assess these databases with 4 others: the World Values Survey (WVS), the Pew Global Attitudes Project (Pew), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the U.S. State Department (State Department) and found "The WCD is highly correlated with the other four data sets, with most correlations near 0.90, which suggests that its data for percent Christian, percent Muslim, percent Buddhist, and percent Hindu are generally reliable". Also about half or less of all countries in the world even ask about religion at all in any census. With inconsistent wording and on voluntary basis too. You have to use other sources by default to compensate. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the only quote in my comment above that I have recovered from the 2022-2023 discussion is the quote from Liedhegener & Odermatt. Brierley's and Woodberry's texts were not quoted directly back then, except for their abstracts, and therefore my argument above provides new evidence and perspectives. Everything else in your message constitutes an ad hominem WP:PA (and I already forgave you for last year's identical one). What I have written hereabove is just my proposal building upon Firefangledfeather's one, takes into consideration all the views which have been expressed by both critical essays and editors in our discussions, and in any case I am not going to close the discussion myself. Æo (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Addendum regarding your addendum with the quote from Hsu et al. and the consideration about census data: the WVS is not a survey specifically about religion, and it is a survey of relatively small samples (of few thousands in about 100 countries); the CIA and the US SD are not survey organisations, they collect data from some other sources (cf. Brierley himself where he states that it is not guaranteed that the CIA website is reliable); the Pew's own views are quoted in my comment above. You have to use other sources by default to compensate — yes, there is plenty of neutral statistical sources to fill gaps where we don't have data from censuses and surveys from national statistical organisations, and therefore we don't need the WCE/WRD/WCD or any other sources produced by Christian missionaries. Æo (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I also noticed the following recently. The ARDA page for the Republic of the Congo https://www.thearda.com/world-religion/national-profiles?u=58c#IRFDEMOG has the WRD estimates as Christians making up 89.32% of the population and then breaks the Christians down as unaffiliated 9.97%, Orthodox 0.01%, Catholic 61.62%, Protestants 11.42%, and Independents 10.87%. Unfortunately adding the subdivisions up yields 93.89% which is considerably more than 89.32%. Also 89.32% fits better with the figures for other religions so it is the 93.89% that is wrong probably at least in part by overestimating the percentage of Catholics (other sources claim Catholics at 32% or 55% [taken from the State Department religious freedom report https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/republic-of-the-congo/ which also states which 2012 government sources it got the figures from [a census and a survey]). The 2022 State department report had 47.3% Catholic and used a 2010 Pew Research Center report. The WRD database itself, which I have access to, lists 89.32% as Christian. Finding the subcategories took some work but it shows that the Christian subdivisions overlap (i.e., some people are counted in two or more Christian groups though not which groups overlap, my guess is many of those who were baptized Catholic and became something else later are counted in both which would explain why the Catholic figure is so high). However this is a guess because nowhere I can find does WRD describe their methodology (And ARDA dropped the overlap category). The list of what I assume is the sources for WRD for the Congo includes the 1960 and 2007 censuses and a 2005 survey but not apparently the 2012 government census and survey. A check on Angola also shows the double counted category missing on the ARDA listing of WRD results though it does show in the actual WRD database; however, most wiki editors do not have access to the latter. Note stuff like simple pie charts require no overlap in their data. This is even when assuming the WRD data is otherwise good data which I don't. So one can make a pie chart for the Congo using WRD data for the major religious categories (Christian, Muslim,...) but not one trying to show Catholic, Protestants, etc as well because the numbers will add up to more than 100%. Erp (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Erp. Hope you are doing well! Glad you were able to use WRD data on the Religion in Republic of Congo page. Yep, that is demography. Did you see Voas and Bruce (2004) "Research note: The 2001 census and christian identification in Britain" [44]? According to them, the British census may have overestimated Christians (71.7%) vs a common British Social Attitudes survey (54.2%). Aren't they all British who took both? Why the difference? The way a question is asked, the way a person interprets and responds play a role in differences we see in the numbers. Its more complicated with sub-divisions like denominations like "Catholic" or "Pentecostal". So I expect the variation on "Catholic" you mentioned (61.62%, 47.3%, 32%, 55%). Makes sense. With all of these numbers, it is best to let experts do the calculations than us wikieditors. They know how to use these databases better than us. In particular, sociologists of religion. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I used it in the Congo article only because the previous editor used it and I didn't want to make too radical a change in one step. First show that the WRD data is inconsistent with itself so drop the Christian subdivisions which at least removes the inconsistencies. Then look for better sources. I'm not sure there is any really authoritative source in this case so it might be better to remove the pie chart (pie charts look nice but they lend the patina of authoritativeness which may be misleading) and discuss the different sources in the article (note some editors use multiple pie charts but that clutters up the article).

And yes how the questions are asked will affect the answers and how the survey or census is done (only resident citizens, all residents, only those with land lines...). However, the WRD isn't doing surveys or taking a census instead it is more a meta study using multiple sources (surveys, censuses, self-reported numbers, other projections) then projecting. My objections to it are several. First, it isn't clear what its sources are. The actual WRD data has a section called "Survey List" which I'm assuming is the list of sources; I have noticed in some cases that later sources than those on the list exist. Second, nothing describes the methodology it is using for a particular country; how is it calculating the projections when did it last update the projections (one can take a stab by looking at the latest item in the "Survey List" for when it likely last updated). Third there is no indication of how accurate they feel they are. Every percentage is to 4 significant digits (or counts to the individual person even when the sources aren't that precise, such as 386 people practicing Chinese Folk Religions and 237 Buddhists in the Republic of the Congo but no Daoists or Confucionists) even when that level of precision is impossible given the sources (projections should not become more precise then the sources). Another fault though common to many other sources is little account for religious syncretism such as in countries like Japan where many practice both Buddhism and Shintoism. Less important there are the oddities of definitions which make them seem not exactly neutral (for instance Confucianists have to be non-Chinese which might explain how they only get 1.8 million Confucianists in China). On another note given the use of the World Religion Database in Wikipedia for better or for worst, it is high time it had its own article complete with critiques from reliable sources so the reader can have some chance of evaluating it. Erp (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what the standard is in social science but in my field metastudy results should be reproducible by others, not shrouded in methodological mystery. That's another big knock on the WRD. JoelleJay (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Erp,

The problems you have encountered regarding the "double counting" and "inconsistent estimates" in WCE/WRD/WCD data are addressed in some of the papers we have discussed. For instance, in Hsu et al.: p. 688, analysing WCE/WRD/WCD data about US Christians: The WCD reports the total adherent count within Christian denominations and movements is 226 million, of whom 20 million are estimated to be doubly affiliated, leaving 206 million unique adherents. An additional 46 million claim to be Christians but are not affiliated with a church, for a total of 252 million affiliated and unaffiliated Christians. The 2005 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches’ tabulation of official church membership is 163 million. In contrast to the WCD, the Yearbook does not count members of independent churches or adjust for doubly affiliated adherents. This difference of 43–63 million adherents between the Yearbook and the WCD warrants further examination. ... The WCD adjusts for “doubly counted” adherents, who may be on multiple membership lists, when aggregating up from denomination level statistics to religious blocks and total religious adherents. However, we do not know how the WCD derives its estimate of 20 million doubly counted U.S. adherents. Current WCD estimates of American Christian populations are generally higher than those based on survey evidence and denominational statistics. The WCD estimate of the total Christian population does not sufficiently reflect the recent downward trend in the percentage of Americans professing Christian identity in surveys.; pp. 689-691, analysing inconsistent estimates of Christians in other countries: We find two major groups of countries with inconsistent estimates: African countries with religious syncretism or a history of social disorder, and formerly Communist countries. ... African countries with very inconsistent estimates for percent Christian (Angola, Burundi, Congo-Brazzaville, Cote d’Ivoire, Gabon, Ghana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) have some populations that mix religious practices. ... For India, which others have cited as problematic, the WCD has a higher estimate for percent Christian than the other data sets ... the difference comes from Christian believers in high and low castes identifying themselves as Hindu for various reasons, ... and the existence of “isolated radio believers” who do not affiliate with particular denominations. The WCE does not explain how it estimates the number of isolated radio believers, presumably a particularly difficult population to measure.. Æo (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Further criticism of the WRD is expressed in the following paper:

• Christopher Claassen & Richard Traunmüller's "Improving and Validating Survey Estimates of Religious Demography Using Bayesian Multilevel Models and Poststratification", Sociological Methods & Research, XX(X): 1-34 (Sage, 2018). On p. 4, we read: A number of data collection projects have arisen to meet this demand, including the World Religion Database ... Although the scope and comprehensiveness of these databases are admirable, and while they provide perhaps the only source of data for some regions and periods of time, there are nevertheless a number of limitations with their estimates. ... Although these databases rightly respect the adage that some data are preferable to none at all, we have no way of ascertaining the degree of uncertainty attached to any particular estimate because none are provided. Without uncertainty estimates, analysts are led to treat census measures and expert opinions as equally valid. Second, the methods used to adjust sample survey data, combine data, and obtain estimates when no data are available are less than fully transparent. Adjusting, combining, interpolating, and extrapolating data require modeling. Yet neither the assumptions underlying the model nor the exact methods for doing so are fully specified. In addition, the uncertainty induced by modeling is again ignored.. --Æo (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: WCE-WRD/WCD

The #World Christian Encyclopedia and World Religion Database/World Christian Database are currently used in many Wikipedia articles (cf. 1, 2, 3, 4) to cite statistics on religion demography, and finding a consensus on the reliability of these sources in the discussion above has been difficult. Foregoing discussions on the same sources include one in 2018 and one in 2022-2023 (with RfC).

In this request for comment, it is possible to:

• Option 0: Express a comment without choosing any specific option on the reliability of the sources.
• Assess the reliability of the sources by choosing from one of the following options:
  • Option 1: Generally reliable
  • Option 2: Additional considerations
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable
  • Option 4: Deprecate

Æo (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

---

• Option 3: There is abundant evidence, especially since the publication of Stewart's 2023 critical essay, but also in previous critical essays, that these are problematic, biased sources originating from a Christian missionary environment, and they have been questioned on methodological grounds. Moreover, the data they produce are based on speculative projection. Secondary sources that recommend their use often come from the same environment, and these secondary sources express some negative criticism themselves. Secondary sources that actually use them tend to be either outdated or uncritical in ther use, often merely citing them in footnotes and/or in lists of multiple sources.--Æo (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. Even if somewhere there's an unresolved discussion of the use of a cite, that still would not justify a 4-way template with options including a blanket ban. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Peter Gulutzan: What do you suggest as an alternative to the four options? Æo (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  "[Name of source] has been used in [reference to Wikipedia article] for a cite of [fact], and attempts to resolve on [name of talk page thread] have failed, please comment here." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, both are possible. I am going to integrate the two formats. I think it is important to clearly assess the reliability of these sources, and in any case, as the rule says, "consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments". These are not votes and the closer will judge based on the merit of all the comments here, in the discussion above, and in the previous threads as well. Æo (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  This is the standard format of RFCs on this noticeboard. The inclusion of an option shouldn't be seen as any kind of endorsement for that option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone has authority to declare what is "the standard". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. Regarding World Christian Encyclopedia (1st and 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 1982, 2001; 3rd ed., Edinburgh University Press, 2019), World Christian Database (Brill, 2007, updated quarterly), and World Religion Database (Brill, 2007, updated quarterly): When I first saw it brought up on this board, I was inclined to encourage reassessing the sources as "Generally reliable". They are published with highly reputable university presses and have been improved across multiple editions and updates. However, after seeing the conversation between Ramos1990 and Æo, I concluded that these sources' current assessment as "Additional considerations" is fairest. Scholarly assessments of the sources evidently vary, with different perspectives about the extent to which the estimations and assessments can be depended on. As such, it makes sense to attribute these sources' projections and surveys and to be mindful of countervailing sources. However, I am not persuaded these sources should be considered "Generally unreliable". I recognize that Æo in their characterizes these sources as "originating from a Christian missionary environment". From what I have seen, that understates how the sources have emerged from an academic religious studies environment. Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, and Brill don't publish just anybody, and that the editors, authors, and demographers involved met those academic standards remains meaningful. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, Bad RFC, WP:FORUMSHOP These sources were assessed last year with the majority not supporting the same RFC poster Æo using the same arguments. I believe this may be WP:FORUMSHOP. He even tried to close the RFC himself with his own views highlighted over the majority.
  In any case, these databases come from academic publishers (Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, Brill). And have been independently empirically assessed too, taking into account any criticisms, with 4 other common databases in demography (the World Values Survey (WVS), the Pew Global Attitudes Project (Pew), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the U.S. State Department (State Department)) and found to be generally reliable and highly correlated (very comparable) with correlation of .9 (note: a correlation of 1 would mean perfect correlation which never happens among demographic datasets) Becky Hsu et al :"We ran correlations of the five data sets with each other on the percentage of adherents to the major world religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism) as well as the nonreligious (Table 2). The WCD is highly correlated with the other four data sets, with most correlations near 0.90, which suggests that its data for percent Christian, percent Muslim, percent Buddhist, and percent Hindu are generally reliable". Furthermore, they note that "on the whole we find that WCD estimates are generally consistent with other data sets. The WCD is highly correlated with the other data sets, estimates for percent Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu" and even give a positive overall recommendation "In sum, we find that the WCD religious composition data are highly correlated with other sources that offer cross-national religious composition estimates. For cross-national studies, the WCD may be more useful than other sources of data because of the inclusion of the largest number of countries, different time periods, and information on all, even small, religious groups.”
  No sources have been presented showing the opposite on such a multiple global datasets scale. And the WRD methodology is available: "fully transparent to the scholarly community...based on best social science and demographic practices." It has census, surveys, polls too.
  Furthermore, these sources are notable for their data being commonly commonly used by high-quality publications. They are respected by a diversity of scholars and authoritative sources such as scholars of Islam (e.g. The Oxford Handbook of Politics in Muslim Societies (2022)), scholars of nonreligion / irreligion (e.g. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion: Volume 7 (2016)), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (2007)), Pew Research Center's uses it in own methodology and database (see Pew's methodology, The Palgrave Handbook of Islam in Africa (2020)) and also Oxford Handbook of Mission Studies (2022), Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion (2011), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Europe (2022).
  If it is good enough for independent demographers, Oxford University handbooks, Cambridge University handbooks, Palgrave Handbooks, Pew, Sociology of Religion, it certainly good enough for Wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I respond to Ramos' argument, which I find to be misleading and which once again relies upon personal attack, in the #Additional commentary below. Æo (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 I was originally between option 1 and 2, but after looking at some points further, I looked around and found additional high quality sources that use WRD/WCDWCE data without any issues. For example, Oxford Handbook of Religion and Europe [45] pages 793–798 uses the databases to summarize European demographics overall. I also found the same thing for summarizing demographics of Asia overall in Oxford Handbook of Christianity in Asia [46] at the very end pages 598–605. Two continents is quite good from my simple search. I think that the Becky Hsu paper on comparing WRD/WCD/WCE with 4 other secular databases with global statistics provides as good test of reliability for any given source. I was surprised such an empirical test was even done for any database at all. A .9 correlation is like an A grade for a student in school. That sociologist Robert Woodberry acknowledged Hsu's general conclusion of high correlation is a good second opinion by an expert, which is as good as it gets for global demography because demography is full of imperfections. I see no good reason for not seeing them as generally reliable at this point. Oxford, Cambridge, Pew and other unquestioned sources don't seem to either. I will lean on their expertise. After all, if WRD/WCD/WCE were unreliable, they would not even be used by them (Oxford handbooks are "Authoritative and state-of-the-art surveys of current thinking and research, from leading international figures in the discipline." [47]) The few clear criticisms I saw were minor and not significant enough compared to the positives and they were mostly Wikipedian opinions, not scholarly assessments. Pentecostalism is an informal denomination and it is hard to even get clear numbers for denominations across countries. Phil Zuckerman's struggle with atheism shows that censuses and surveys, may not be able to capture all religious groups evenly across countries and so any complaints about WRD/WCD/WCE seem to just be problems faced by demography in general, and not unique to WRD/WCD/WCE. I find it odd that the same editor opening this RFC is the same editor that opened the 2022 RFC with seeming repeat intent to depreciate again (WP:RSP entry). desmay (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 I'm mostly going on methodological grounds and also because in my last deep dive (from the previous discussion) I found very few peer reviewed articles using the WRD as a source that were not connected with the project itself (e.g., authored by someone in WRD). Even Pew uses it only when no other sources exist. Where we know it does correlate, other better sources exist which they are probably using. One article mostly on Pew though it also applies to WRD (Birdsall, Judd; Beaman, Lori (2020-07-02). "Faith in Numbers: Can we Trust Quantitative Data on Religious Affiliation and Religious Freedom?" (PDF). The Review of Faith & International Affairs. 18 (3): 60–68. doi:10.1080/15570274.2020.1795401. ISSN 1557-0274. Retrieved 2024-01-12. notes that "Numbers are not neutral. Behind any quantification of religion or FoRB there are a range of qualitative assumptions and decisions as to what constitutes religion, religiosity, a restriction on religious belief or practice, or a social hostility involving religion. It’s both an art and a science" and goes on to state "Pay close attention to what an organization is actually measuring and use the correct terminology when citing its data. As we have seen, religious “identification” is not synonymous with faith, belief, practice, or even formal affiliation" (page 6 of the pdf). Pew almost always gives us the methodology for their figures; WRD just presents the data but not what type of religiosity they are estimating (formal affiliation, self-identification, practicing). We should also be upfront that in some cases precise numbers just aren't there so, for instance, not use a pie chart which privileges one source well above others when no source is great. (As an aside I just looked at the WRD info on the United Kingdom, I suspect it would come to a shock to many in Scotland and Northern Ireland that the UK's state religion is Anglican [it is the state religion only of England].)

Erp (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Deep dive. Looking at an article that is comparing the WRD/WCD and several other sources (note WRD and WCD overlap on who is running them, in particular Todd Johnson) (McKinnon, Andrew (2020). "Demography of Anglicans in Sub-Saharan Africa: Estimating the Population of Anglicans in Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda". Journal of Anglican Studies. 18 (1): 42–60. doi:10.1017/S1740355320000170. ISSN 1740-3553. Retrieved 2024-01-14., btw the article goes into depth about why the numbers can vary including why censuses and surveys can vary). Broadly they match other info until they hit Nigeria. "Relative to any of the other cases we have considered here, WCD estimates differ most dramatically from any of the four surveys in terms of the proportion of Anglicans in Nigeria. The WCD estimates a dramatic proportional increase in Anglicans in the 45 years leading up to 2015, from 5.2 per cent to 12.1 per cent. The highest proportion of Anglicans on any of the surveys is found in the R5 Afrobarometer survey, where Anglicans comprise 5.3 per cent of a nationally representative sample". The author continued "The WCD has arrived at its estimate for the proportion of Anglicans in 2015 by taking the last reported figures provided by the Church of Nigeria (Anglican) itself to the WCD.... In correspondence with the author, Todd Johnson of WCD has noted that, collectively, the churches and denominations of Nigeria claim 25 million more members than the best estimate of the Christian population would allow". After evaluating all the information the author concludes that there is at least 4.94 million self-identified Anglicans in Nigeria and no more than 11.74 million (the Church of Nigeria claims 18 million). BTW the ARDA report of the WRD figures (https://www.thearda.com/world-religion/national-profiles?u=166c#RELADH) which most Wiki editors likely use does not include or mention the subtraction (under the guise of multiple affiliations) that WRD uses in its own database to make the various percentages add up; the WRD total percentage of Christians is 46.18% but adding up the WRD subtotals as reported by ARDA yields 56.29%. Erp (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Ramos1990 who makes a compelling argument. Nemov (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or at least 2. Like Erp, I am concerned with the methodology used in compiling these databases, particularly the opacity in what questions are even being asked of respondents. Pew uses WCD and other databases for only 5% of the population. That that 5% is divided into a larger number of countries than the percentages allocated to surveys etc. is about as meaningful as the observation that Trump won 2,497 counties while Biden "only" won 477. The only utility would be when discussing religious representation in the particular 57 countries that Pew used "a database" for, but in those cases we have a better source in Pew itself, which has secondarily filtered and interpreted these data. Perhaps professional demographers can extract the substantive information from WRD, but given how uneven it is in reliability and all the special considerations that one must make for given groups, we should treat it as essentially a primary source. JoelleJay (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1: Demography of religion is very sophisticated and imperfect. If it were a simple matter, or if there was a one-source solution, there wouldn't be as much debate among sociologists/demographers on religion (adherents and belief are not the same and hard to capture), and certainly not the thousands of sources that Pew needs to use to estimate religion in 232 nations. The sources in the RFC are used in quite a good number of tertiary sources from experts and reliable publishers of high-quality resources. For Wikipedia's purposes, we go by what reliable sources like these use, not if a source can solve what so many sociologists/demographers of religion have been unable to solve and continue to debate about, the number of adherents. Sociology of religion is full of debates on the estimated numbers of religious adherents. ---1990'sguy (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2: I'm fine with keeping it at option 2 but being more explicit about how it can be used. The methodology is really unclear, it is also unclear whether some numbers are predictions for the future. That the data is a lot of the time cited to ARDA instead of the real source doesn't help. WCD should never replace census data, reliable polling data or reliable membership statistics (e.g. Germany). It should not be used in religion/country articles that have better sources, the approach Pew takes essentially. If we add those other sources then I think it would violate WP:NOTSTATS and WP:UNDUE to also add the WCD. In religion/country articles where there are no better sources, it can be used but only with attribution and a disclaimer that they generally overestimate the number of christians. In the best case scenario, also an explanation of their methodology (this will be difficult). If it is used in infoboxes there should be a note with the same information. The data should not be put in a pie chart because people are far more likely to mistake it for census data or polling data (with conventional 3% error margins). --2A02:1810:BC3A:D800:A050:6C5A:A34E:91A2 (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• I'm surprised by some comments here. For instance, "The sources in the RFC are used in quite a good number of tertiary sources from experts and reliable publishers of high-quality resources"--well, that may be so, but if the argument against is "a lot of academic studies are highly critical of the source and the organization funding them is biased" and the argument for is "there are scholars that use it", then these two are not on equal footing, and it seems obvious to me that we should value those that actually studied this and other databases higher than those that simply use it/them. No, I don't find Ramos's argument compelling here, because (besides all the other problems) they are simply explaining who uses it--"If it is good enough for independent demographers..." But that, while not invalid, is simply not as strong as the counterargument, and I think the last thing we should do here on Wikipedia is use data that is published by biased organizations and questioned by scholars. So I'm actually going to go with 4: deprecate, because of its problematic source, rather than 3. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• A request for the closer: there have been some instances of at least borderline WP:CANVASSING and there are allegations that more may have occurred, potentially off-wiki. I'd recommend adhering especially to WP:NOTAVOTE when assessing consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2: It may be usable depending on context. Path2space (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Ramos1990 and Desmay. It's trusted by extremely high-quality sources, and that means it's good enough to be used on Wikipedia. - GretLomborg (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Additional commentary

Ramos' argument is opened by an ad hominem WP:PA (in which she falsely accuses me of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, manipulates the facts of the 2022-2023 discussion as she already tried to do in January 2023 and on 6 January 2024 in the discussion above, and accuses me of using the same arguments whilst I have presented plenty of new evidence, starting from Stewart's 2023 essay), which would be enough to make her argument fallacious. Then, she builds upon a few lines, already reiterated again and again in the discussion above, excerpted from the 2008 Hsu et al. paper which, however, is overall mostly critical of the source under discussion. Regarding the CIA and the US SD, they are not statistical institutes, and they collect statistics about religions from other sources, often from the WCE/WRD/WCD itself (e.g. US SD 2022 India report)! The Pew's very restrictive criteria in its use of WCE/WRD/WCD data have been thoroughly explained by JoelleJay and by myself in the discussion above, and once again by Erp in her comment hereabove. Then, Ramos continues by stating that no sources have been presented showing the opposite on such a multiple global datasets scale, which is misleading: various scholarly sources presented (even Hsu et al. itself!) found a systematic overestimation of Christianity and underestimation of other categories in WCE/WRD/WCD data, and various other problems, but Ramos chooses to completely ignore all the critical problems highlighted by such scholarly sources. Anne-Marie Kool's Revisiting Mission in, to and from Europe through Contemporary Image Formation (2016), another essay which is highly critical of the source under discussion, already quoted in the 2022-2023 discussion, warns that: widespread caution is raised with regard to the accuracy of the figures and not to engage in statistical analysis with the data. Æo (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Questions of forum shopping or any other editor behaviour should be taken elsewhere, equally editors comments should be centered on sources not each other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about Kool. She is not a demographer and she even says on the sources, "I have taken them for as authoritative in my teaching and research during the last two decades." The Becky Hsu et al. source was not a source I found. It was Æo that cited it in the 2022 discussion and tired to use it as a main source against reliability. But after I read it, I noticed that it said the opposite and even included Christian data in the list of generally reliable data (see my blue text for quote). She is explicit on this. Furthermore, Table 2 has correlations on Christians among the 4 data sets and WCD correlates with the 4 datasets better (.9188, .9251, .9581, .9346 - all above .9 correlation) than how the other 4 datasets correlate with each other (.9146, .8979, .9365, .8468, .8538, .9408 - some are below .9 correlation). On overestimating, it is not unique [48]. Plus I found another authoritative source explicitly saying "A scholarly analysis of the World Christian Database was conducted by sociologists at Princeton University in 2008, confirming its reliability. See Hsu et al., 2008." (Bloomsbury Handbook to Study Christians (2019)) and in p. 23 acknowledges that these are "the best scholarly resource we have for documenting religious affiliation in the world today". For Pew, see my responses above. WRD is the second most used primary source after censuses, by country. Population size wise, WRD usage was comparable to large scale demographic surveys (12% of the population) - but Pew used 2,500 sources overall so it was never one source per country. Seeing that China and India alone account for 38% of the world population and all of Europe is only 7% of the global population, objections based on population size are not convincing not carry any weight. Pew goes by # of countries instead. See Palgrave handbook link for more info. Pew would simply not use WRD if it was so unreliable. Period. Numerous other authoritative sources that are commissioned specifically to leading experts in their fields (Oxford handbooks, Cambridge handbooks, etc) easily use these. Net positive, all things considered. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You continue to manipulate facts, potentially misleading readers and commentators, probably expecting them not to read the essays and the past discussions. The full paragraph of Kool (2016) in which the line you excerpted is contained is the following (underlined: your excerpt): It might well be that the great quantity of details easily silenced possible critical voices. It is peculiar that hardly any serious critical interaction and discussion of the underlying methodology of the Atlas has taken place, neither of its two data providing predecessors (footnote 65: Except for a not very convincing study: BECKY HSU et al.). The data are simply taken for granted, as I have taken them for as authoritative in my teaching and research during the last two decades.. It is a statement of repentance for having used the highly problematic WCE/WRD/WCD data in her past works.

Similarly, Hsu et al. (2008) itself (n.b. my links are always to the full paper, while Ramos' ones are always to the paper's abstract only), from which you continue to quote a few selected and decontextualised lines, is actually very critical of the sources under discussion, and I provided relevant quotes from it in the 2022-2023 discussion and others in the discussion above. It is also true that Hsu et al. is from the mid 2000s, and age matters in this case (as Doug Weller correctly pointed out in the discussion above), and therefore the excerpt you keep quoting about "high correlation" may have been true for the data of the 2000s, but no longer be true for the data of the 2010s and 2020s.

The full paragraph of Hsu et al. from which your excerpt is taken is the following (underlined: your excerpt; highlighted: critical parts): We ran correlations of the five data sets with each other on the percentage of adherents to the major world religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism) as well as the nonreligious (Table 2). The WCD is highly correlated with the other four data sets, with most correlations near 0.90, which suggests that its data for percent Christian, percent Muslim, percent Buddhist, and percent Hindu are generally reliable. However, the other data sets often do not have information for all countries, so the correlations only represent the countries where other data sets record percentages for those religious categories. Most notably, the nonreligious data are not highly correlated between most of the data sets. While all of the data sets have mostly complete data for percent Christian and percent Muslim, data on percent Buddhist, percent Hindu, and percent nonreligious are incomplete in various data sets. The nonreligious category has few observations in State Department and CIA data and is best represented in the WCD, WVS, and Pew. The estimates for Hindus and Buddhists are especially problematic in the CIA data. Figure 1 shows that the WCD tends to overestimate percent Christian relative to the other data sets. Scatterplots show that the majority of the points lie above the y - x line, indicating the WCD estimate for percent Christian within countries is generally higher than the other estimates. Although the bias is slight, it is consistent, and consequently, the WCD estimates a higher ratio of Christians in the world. This suggests that while the percentage Christian estimates are closely related among the data sets, the tendency is for them to be slightly higher in the WCD.

Regarding the handbooks that you keep citing, they are not written by statisticians and demographers and are not essays about statistics/demography and its methodologies. They are just "handbooks" that uncritically use the WCE/WRD/WCD among many other sources. Æo (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Key word in Hsu - "Slight". Nowhere does she say significant, nor does she isolate Christians away from the list of "generally reliable". Table 2 shows WCD had higher correlation (greater than .9) with all 4 datasets than the other 4 datasets with each other (some were below .9) on Christians as well. High correlation verifies general reliability. Overestimates/underestimates occur all the time in demography because all sources are limited. Example on census overestimating Christians too [49] and also some censuses like Soviet or Albanian censuses underestimated Christians. If WRD was as unreliable as you keep saying, high quality publications obviously would not use them even on Christianity at all, and yet they do. Among other recent ones I cited above (in my vote), here is one someone else found on summarizing Christianity in Asia [50] (btw Asia is ~60% of global population). These publications use experts in demography. Neither you or I are experts. I will leave it here. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hsu, whom in any case wrote although the bias is slight, it is consistent, and consequently, the WCD estimates a higher ratio of Christians, is not the only one to have found such an overestimation; almost all the other papers cited have highlighted it. For instance, Liedhegener & Odermatt found a systematic bias of its data in favor of Christianity. It is "systematic" and "consistent" throughout all countries, which means that even if the percentage of overestimation for each country were low (e.g. 3%), the overall result on the world population would be significant. The evidence suggests that in some cases the percentage of overestimation is very high: e.g. Australia WRD 2020 ~57%, cfr. Australia Census 2021 ~44% — overestimation of 13%; Canada WRD 2020 ~63%, cfr. Canada Census 2021 ~53% — overestimation of 10%; Czechia WRD 2020 ~35%, cfr. Czechia Census 2021 ~12% — overestimation of 23%; Hungary WRD 2020 ~87%, cfr. Hungary Census 2021 ~42% — overestimation of 45%; Isle of Man WRD 2020 ~84%, cfr. Isle of Man Census 2021 ~55% — overestimation of 29%; and there are many other examples. Æo (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Your analysis: WRD vs census, is not reliable or convincing. Liedhegener & Odermatt themselves use at least a dozen sources from different time periods and adjust censuses to get their numbers for Europe. They use aggregate analysis, not single source basis (i.e. they do not just use census and that's it). Plus they admit that the quality of census can be problematic and are variable. "Even recent censuses pose sometimes serious, probably unsolvable problems to statistics on religious affiliation at a subnational or regional level. Micro censuses especially share to a certain extent the problems of survey research because the number of respondents is higher, but still restricted. The latest Swiss census is an example of the limitations to producing reliable regional, not to mention local, statistics on religious affiliation. But even traditional population censuses may cause problems which also affect regional comparisons. The British census of 2001 may illustrate this. Its results on religious affiliation where not only restricted by a missing distinction between the major Christian traditions. Moreover, the questionnaire differed substantially between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland." Some census are good for sure, but obviously not all the time. Plus less than half the countries around the world even ask about religion in their censuses. And the ones that do are inconsistently worded country by country. That means half the world is missing such data by default. Liedhegener & Odermatt themselves admit "Moreover, for Europe as a whole, as for important European countries such as France and Great Britain, it is currently impossible to give reliable figures on the religious affiliation of its population." Britain has census data on religion by the way, so what happened there is interesting. Also they do say that "For Europe the SMRE data show that the WCD provides plausible data for a number of countries, but not for all." Definitely different than your analysis above. This is an interesting admission and find it interesting that they incorporated WCD to their SMRE, it means it is indeed a valuable demographical database for SMRE. And OMG they even acknowledge historical significance as former "international “gold standard” of comparative statistics on religious affiliation, the World Christian Database". Understandable with other global datasets available than in the past. Anyways, this is not unique, "To illustrate this: The two well-known international surveys EVS and ESS use a two-stage process of questioning. In comparison to other sources this technique leads frequently to much higher results on the proportion of persons with no religious affiliation. In addition, due to different wording, the ESS produces even higher figures in this category than the EVS." Each source is limited obviously. They even say "Statistics on religious affiliation in France are a prominent example. It depends on the data you choose to either name France a catholic country or to declare it to be a highly secularized nation. However, comparing the different data on France collected by the SMRE, it becomes clear that it is virtually impossible to come up with reliable figures for this Western European country today." I like their admission that secularized countries "are countries with a lack of data or with contradicting data".

Religious demography is just a mess and not as simple as you make it seem. That is why I keep on saying that experts should be doing this stiff, not wikieditors. I rest on the experts from Oxford, Pew, Cambridge, etc on what sources are used and acceptable. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm wrong to post this as a reply.

Comment: The World Religion Database has recently (on 5 Feb.) changed it lay-out. More importantly, they have published on their FAQ a document containing their methodology. It is probably required reading for everyone giving their opinion on this source. 2A02:1810:BC3A:D800:2C98:387B:A549:4647 (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the reliability of Mondoweiss?

What is the reliability of Mondoweiss?

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

WP:RSP has 8 discussions on Mondoweiss, but not an RfC I can see. It is cited somewhat frequently in the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Mondoweiss)

• Option 4 I’m starting this RfC because since the October 7th attacks on Israel, Mondoweiss pushes extremism and disinformation. Like WP:COUNTERPUNCH or WP:UNZ, it has published extremist opinion pieces; in this case acclaiming attacks on Israeli civilians (typically considered to be war crimes). In terms of disinformation, the main propaganda narrative Monodoweiss pushes is that there is no evidence that Palestinians raped Israelis on October 7th. [51] [52][53][54]

According to The BBC, NBC news, The New York Times, AP news, The Washington Post, and Human Rights Watch, mass rapes were committed by Palestinians against Israeli civilians on October 7th. The consensus of all reliable sources is that this happened, and that there is verifiable evidence to show this. Mondoweiss is the outlier here with rape denialism against the vast majority of overwhelming sources. This is typical historical negationism; these are disingenuous claims that there is 'no evidence' for well-documented atrocities akin to Holocaust denial tactics.

Mondoweiss also published extremist opinion pieces glorifying the acts of terrorism on October 7th. Counterpunch, Unz, and the Electronic Intifada [55] were declared unreliable for similar reasons, so I believe this is fair game to criticize the source on. This also provides the 'why' as to Mondoweiss' denialism of atrocities in the ongoing war. So I’ll just grab a few choice quotes from opinion pieces to show my point.

• From the moment those fighters flew in on paramotors, disrupting the parallel reality that was this music festival, they accomplished something profound (one must wonder what it felt like for these fighters to see a party just outside where they have been trapped under a suffocating blockade). in reference to the Re'im music festival massacre. [56]
• In some ways, then, we can see the attack on the festival as the most violent of anti-colonial refusals — a refusal to let the children of a nation that ethnically cleansed one’s family party on that stolen land in peace. It violently reasserts that this land is stolen and that it can only be returned to its rightful owners through bloodshed. [57]
• Nothing can hide the determination and courage of those young people who returned to their land on October 7.[58]
• They have failed to mention that those targeted were, are, colonizers, settlers, the primary agents, actors, impellers of the colonization and genocide of Palestine. They have failed to mention that the resistance targets colonial settlements, established atop ethnically cleansed and razed Palestinian villages; it targets colonial settlers that live in stolen Palestinian houses, on stolen Palestinian land, urinate on our corpses and dance on our graves. They have failed to highlight that the term “Settler-Colonialism” is not without reason, and that a colonizer is a colonizer, in uniform or out.[59]
• The inhuman and annihilating excess of organized state force, whose untold destructive powers are now unfolding in total violence on the helpless people of Gaza, can never be morally equated with even the most atrocious acts of the colonized committed in the hope of liberation from an unbearable colonial regime. Any demand that the colonized desist from the use of armed force, a right in any case guaranteed to them under international law, becomes arrant hypocrisy in the face of the technical storm inflicted by state powers. [60]

To summarize, Mondoweiss is extremist and encourages hatred/terrorist attacks against Israelis. It argues that the killing and raping of civilians is not only justified, but actively heroic if done to advance Palestinian interests. Any of these opinion pieces, if posted by an editor on Wikipedia, would probably result in an indefinite block for racism per WP:NONAZIS. We can and should ban racist publications as sources as they have a tendency to fabricate information to fit their viewpoints. Mondoweiss proves this by publishing disinformation about the well-evidenced mass rapes committed on October 7th and repeatedly alleging that there is no evidence for these war crimes. Using it as a source would be giving credence to WP:FRINGE viewpoints. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through all your evidence so I picked the first link, read it entirely, followed through to the Hebrew links and used machine translation to verify that Mondoweiss is indeed correct. At no point did I find the article said what you claimed it did ("pushes is that there is no evidence that Palestinians raped Israelis on October 7th"). Instead, it cast doubt on the rape of one particular victim: Gal Abdush. Their reporting is corroborated by Channel 13 (Israel) quoting that Abdush's brother-in-law says "No one knows if it [rape] happened". VR _talk 16:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Gal Abdush is the woman in the black dress filmed with her groin covered in blood. Virtually every reliable news outlet agrees that the video shows evidence of rape. Mondoweiss, which admits it has not seen the video, says the video proves nothing. Do you want me to post the video here? You can find it on Yandex in a few seconds. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No, Mondoweiss article doesn't say "the video proves nothing". It says, "The newspaper did not link to the video but released a distant, indistinct image from it that revealed nothing". This is the image from the NYT article (article reproduced here). Indeed the image is quite unclear.VR _talk 20:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: The last line of the Mondoweiss article is that In the end, it appears that the New York Times manipulated a working-class Mizrahi family in the service of Israeli hasbara in order to score a journalistic achievement, which in reality is nothing more than a repetition of fake news and government propaganda. Calling a piece "fake news and government propaganda" is pretty clear that Mondoweiss is calling the New York Times article bullshit. I would imagine they wouldn't call the New York Times "fake news" if they thought the video was credible.

Mondoweiss bases this on two things: that the video of Gal Abdush is not available to them, and so the only evidence are Abdush's relatives who dispute that this video shows she was raped.

A high-res video is result two on Bing for "woman who was raped and burned to death". I'd recommend not clicking through to the video unless you really want to verify that, but Mondoweiss didn't bother to look for the video and so I don't think their first point holds water. They say that Abdush's brother-in-law + relatives don't believe/have doubts that Abdush was raped, but this is all meaningless hearsay. What matters to the Gal Abdush story is whether or not Mondoweiss bothered to find the video evidence which can be trivially found on a major search engine. That is what the New York Times based their reporting on, and Mondoweiss' media analysis falls flat.

This would be like trying to refute theories about the JFK Assassination by looking at social media posts of people that have seen the Zapruder film instead of bothering to watch it oneself. It is the job of a secondary source to review the primary source and analyze it, not delegate that responsibility to relatives of the family member (who may not want to acknowledge that someone was raped) on social media. A source that doesn't (e.g. Mondoweiss) is not a reliable source. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I searched the video and found it on bing, and 1) its not the same video referenced by NYT (the NYT video screenshot is taken from a distance and has poor resolution) 2) the video I found is of a corpse, there is no evidence of rape (but then again I'm not an expert in these things).

And blaming a source for omissions is a standard not required of RS. Its clear NYT omitted thoroughly interviewing Abdush's family members, does that make NYT unreliable? RS sources are expected to be accurate, not comprehensive. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3, though would not oppose Option 4. Even in its news articles Mondoweiss has published false and misleading information, and when we consider its lean towards antisemitism it is not a source we can rely on.

For example, it has stuck to the narrative that Israel is responsible for the al-Ahli explosion. This is most obvious in opinion articles but it also occurs in news articles. They have explicitly stated that Israel is responsible in:

1. Do not dismiss the Gaza genocide allegations from November 19. It makes the indisputably false claim that Israeli claims as to complete Palestinian culpability have been largely debunked.
2. ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 39: Health official says Israel ‘sentencing Al-Shifa hospital to death’ as doctors dig mass grave from November 14
3. ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 15: Gaza aid trickles in amid uninterrupted airstrikes, West Bank arrests continue from October 21
4. etc

They have also implied it in a number of other articles, such as by referring to the explosion as a "bombing" and by linking to an article from the immediate aftermath of the explosion which is headlined "Massacre: Israel kills over 500 Palestinians in Gaza hospital attack" and describes an airstrike as being the cause.

1. Activists hold Israel responsible for drive-by-shooting at homes of detained demonstrators in Umm al-Fahm from December 13
2. Israel’s criminalization of Palestinian protest from November 23
3. ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 36: Al-Shifa hospital at epicenter of Gaza fighting as fleeing civilians are killed by Israeli strikes from November 11
4. etc

Their falsehoods aren't limited to that topic; they also present them on others, such as the tunnels beneath Al-Shifa. For example, in ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 46: Israeli tanks besiege Indonesian Hospital as bombardment of Gaza continues from November 21, Mondoweiss says The claims [that Hamas has tunnels underneath the Indonesian Hospital] mirror previous allegations Israel made about Al-Shifa Hospital that it has yet to provide concrete evidence of. This is false; on November 19 independent media had confirmed that tunnels existed beneath Al-Shifa.

Elsewhere, they misrepresent their own sources. For example, in Western media’s reference to the ‘Hamas-run’ Health Ministry is another dehumanizing tactic enabling Israel’s genocide they say that Reuters says that three Al-Shifa employees were abducted; what Reuters actually says is that three are missing.

In addition, I have concerns about antisemitism at Mondoweiss. For example, in "‘Atlantic’ rebrands new editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, leaving Israel, Jews, and Iraq off his resume" Philip Weiss, who is the founder and co-editor of the website, makes the problematic statement The word Jew made no appearance in the Atlantic announcement; while most of the piece is acceptable criticism of a new editor, with this line it swerves directly into antisemitism by suggesting that ones status as a Jew is relevant to ones position as the editor-in-chief of a major news organization - see Antisemitic trope#Controlling the media. Reliable sources have also documented this, such as in this Atlantic article. BilledMammal (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Exploring the source more generally, I find:

First, they widely use deprecated sources; see #Discussion (Mondoweiss) for details.

Second, I've found additional evidence of them misrepresenting their sources, going beyond their sources, and even making basic errors with their sources.

Misrepresenting sources:

1. In "Sadness and anger as 4 Jewish victims of Paris attack are buried in Jerusalem" they claim that The bodies of the deceased were interred in a Jerusalem commemoration after an invitation to host the burial was extended to relatives of the slain by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, which later sought payment from families of $13,000 each for the ceremonies. The source they link says something very different; that the Hevra Kadisha burial society demanded Tuesday that the families of four Jewish men killed in a Paris terror attack and buried in Jerusalem each pay NIS 50,000 ($12,500) for their burials.
2. In "How the Taliban chased the West out of Afghanistan", they attribute the statement They tried to stuff another part of the money into a helicopter, but not all of it fit. And some of the money was left lying on the tarmac to Reuters; Reuters is careful to avoid saying so in its own voice and instead attributes it to a Russian spokesman.
3. In the same article, they cite an ODI report to say that Surveys regularly found Afghans saying that they believed corruption levels were lower in Taliban areas. However, the source makes no such claim; the source doesn't even include a survey regarding corruption.
4. In "Israel’s national airline El Al is an intelligence front for the Shin Bet" they claim that Israel uses its airlines as an intelligence front, in which Israeli security services work for the airlines as undercover employees. As evidence for this, they cite an undercover investigation conducted by Aljazeera. In doing so, they make a significant misrepresentation of the source, which discusses no undercover investigation, and avoids saying in its own voice that the airline is used as a front, instead attributing that claim to specific individuals and leaked South African cables.
5. In "Palestinians bid farewell to journalist Khalid Amayreh". It claims that he urged the Palestinian people to reject the two state solution. However, in the source provided he makes no such claim; instead, he reports that Palestinians consider it to be dead.

Going beyond their sources:

1. In "Arms, oil and Iran – Israel’s role in Nagorno-Karabakh" they say Around 75,000 ethnic Armenians fled their homes in Nagorno-Karabakh – more than half of the population. The source they use, DW, provides that number - but attributes it to a Artsakh spokesperson and does not put it in their own voice.

Making errors with their sources:

1. In "Gulf crisis could push Hamas closer to Iran, or cause it to fold under the Palestinian Authority" they say Moreover, Qatar has paid the salaries of 40,000 Hamas employees in 2016, a bill that totaled $20 million and required careful coordination between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. What their source says is that Sheikh Tamim bin Hamd al-Thani will pay $31,030,752 for the July salaries of Gaza’s public sector employees - these are significant errors, getting both the period and the value significantly wrong.
2. In the same article, they say Last week Egypt gave 220,000 gallons of fuel to Gaza’s power plant, raising daily electrical supplies to eight hours, up from four the week before. Their source states the opposite; Despite the plant's partial resumption, residents will continue to receive four hours of electricity followed by about 14 hours off.
3. In Netanyahu bolsters Sudan’s military leaders in attempt to save normalization they claim that 72% of Sudanese oppose normalization; the figure their source gives is 68%. It's a minor mistake, and in a more reputable organization would be something we could safely ignore, but it's another piece on the pile of evidence against Mondoweiss. I misread their source BilledMammal (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Third, they have defended deprecated sources such as Russia Today and The Electronic Intifada:

1. They defend RT in a number of articles; in "The Russiagate farce" they go beyond defending it and present the claim that Russia influenced the 2016 election as conspiracy theory.
2. In "A salute to ‘Electronic Intifada’", they describe EI as a source that continues telling indispensable truths.

Fourth, they have published misinformation:

1. In "Palestinian Authority blocks dozens of websites critical of Abbas government". This source claims that QNN is an independent news source with no political affiliation. This is false; it is affiliated with Hamas (The Guardian, Al Jazeera, JNS, US State Department, VOA, ToI, etc). Bizarrely, they originally got this correct; they issued a "correction" to say that their initial statement that QNN was affiliated with Hamas was incorrect.
2. In Inside the “Wasps’ Nest”: the rise of the Jenin Brigade they claimed that Israeli attacks killed 51 people. The actual figures for the conflict is 49 killed overall, with 30 killed by Israel. See also Al Monitor.

This is not a source I am familiar with, so most of the issues I could identify were when they were contradicted by their own sources. I suspect an editor better versed in this source and the topics it writes on would find far more falsehoods.

I still prefer Option 3, but given all this I would support Option 4 as a second choice. BilledMammal (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

An overall problem with this approach is treating as "sources" what are merely links. They refer to other coverage, but that's not to say it's the sole basis of their reportage. And in any case, many of these are either cases of semantics, cherrypicked/selective quotation, or not errors at all, e.g.:

2. The Afghanistan article: I don't think it's necessarily a misrepresentation; you've quoted selectively. MW also sources the information to the Russian embassy in Afghanistan: When he fled the country, press secretary of the Russian embassy in Kabul Nikita Ishchenko told RIA Novosti, his people drove four cars filled with money to the airfield. “They tried to stuff another part of the money into a helicopter, but not all of it fit. And some of the money was left lying on the tarmac,” according to a Reuters report. It's clear they're quoting Reuters' coverage of Ischenko's remarks.

3. The report you link says (p. 17): "most [Afghans] pointed to government interference and corruption and occupation of and theft from clinics by Afghan security forces and militias as being more problematic than Taliban interventions." The fact that this came from interviews rather than "surveys" is semantic ("survey" also means To investigate the opinions, experiences, etc., of people by asking them questions which is what that report was about)

5. The Khaled Amayreh article: MW says Amayreh urged Palestinians to refuse its [the two-state solution's] false promise. In the AJ article, Amayreh says: There is just no time left for a Palestinian state. How can a state be a viable proposition when it has no control over its borders, when there is a military occupation, and when towns are cut off from each other by a system of roads and checkpoints? The two seem entirely consistent.

"Going beyond their sources": this is just a case of MW willing to say in its own voice what another source decided to attribute. It's inclined to believe the official from Nagorno-Karabakh, no different from how Israeli sources frequently parrot IDF talking points without attribution.

"Making errors with their sources"

2. The "Gulf Crisis" article: the BBC article was published four days prior to the MW article, and it's linked for the "220,000 gallons" point (not the hours of power point). An engineer interviewed by BBC stated his hope that the remaining two generators could be made "operational before the festival of Eid al-Fitr", which, in 2017, began on June 25 (the day before the MW article was published).

3. The 72% figure comes from Figure 27 of the linked article. You might have gotten it confused with Figure 26, "Attitudes towards the Palestinian cause". There was no error, minor or otherwise.

Regarding the attempt to tether MW to deprecated sources, I don't think that's compelling reasoning. As you concede below, this is only grounds for Option 3 or 4 in the context of the other evidence [you] have presented, which is amenable to various interpretations.

"Published Misinformation":

1. None of the sources you provide explain exactly how QNN is "affiliated with" Hamas; is it "affiliated" in the same way the Health Ministry is "controlled by" Hamas?

2. The Russiagate piece is presented as "Media Analysis" which is different from its News section; it has the cadence of an op-ed. I doubt this could be cited for statements of fact even if it was published in an RS, per WP:RSEDITORIAL.

So this alleged evidence is not particularly damning in any case. WillowCity^(talk) 12:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

First, you're right about Sudan; I have struck that, thank you for the correction.

Second, you've only addressed about half the issues I raised. Even if you were right about all of them that still leaves too much to allow us to consider this source reliable - it is relevant to point out here that these are just the tip of the iceberg; I found them in only a couple of hours.

However, you weren't right about all of them; half of the issues you raised could go either way, but the other half your argument is very weak (eg, arguing that Mondoweiss is right and everyone else is wrong), or I have found additional sources to disprove your interpretation.

Specific responses
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Misrepresenting sources 2. I can see how you can interpret it that way, but the sentence structure leads me to believe that it is attributed to Reuters. Reasonable minds could differ. 3. It's not only that there wasn't a survey; its that that source doesn't support the claim. It makes no statement about the level of corruption in Taliban areas, and it makes no comparison in their beliefs as to the level of corruption. 5. He's not urging anything there, in my view, he's stating his own view. Going beyond their sources: Then the correct thing to do is source the official directly. Making errors with their sources 2. Possible, but I felt it was unlikely, so I looked into it. Reliable sources from around the same time as the Mondoweiss article also gives four hours; New Arab, Al Jazeera. 3. Fair point, I misread; I've struck that line. Defended deprecated sources 2. Their articles explicitly labeled "news" also tend to have the cadence of an op-ed. I don't consider this distinction a defense. Published Misinformation 1. Your point seems to be "Mondoweiss is right, every other reliable source is wrong"; that isn't a good argument.

As you concede below, this is only grounds for Option 3 or 4 "in the context of the other evidence [you] have presented", which is amenable to various interpretations.

I don't think you understood what I was saying there. If this source was otherwise impeccable, the reliance on deprecated sources would still be enough to make a valid argument for Option 3 or Option 4, but it would be possible to argue for Option 2 - and as you implicitly concede, this source about is far from impeccable as you can get. BilledMammal (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. Mondoweiss is primarily a publisher of op-eds. Since there is no evidence that Mondoweiss interferes with what its authors write, the reliability of each article depends on the author only. Our rules for citing opinions are perfectly adequate for dealing with it. If the author is a subject-area expert, there is no reason to exclude him/her from citation. We cite op-eds in the Israeli press which are no less biased on average. The concern being expressed here is not really about reliability; note how the two comments before this one quite openly emphasise that articles in Mondoweiss don't follow a pro-Israel line. Zero^talk 11:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  note how the two comments before this one quite openly emphasise that articles in Mondoweiss don't follow a pro-Israel line Unless you consider "not antisemitic" to be equivalent to "pro-Israel", I don’t think that’s a fair assessment of my comment. BilledMammal (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's true that I ignored the weakest part of your argument, which quotes out of context and avoids mentioning that Philip Weiss is Jewish. Zero^talk 12:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

While not disagreeing with parts of your vote,

avoids mentioning that Philip Weiss is Jewish

The idea that being Jewish automatically precludes one from holding antisemitic views is a false one. The Kip 23:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

What about Wall Street Journal, which published an editorial "Islamophobia isn't real", calling Islamophobia "normal human reaction to terror"? Even RS sometimes (unfortunately) give space to prejudice. VR _talk 04:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That’s not an editorial; it’s an opinion piece. Opinion pieces shouldn’t be used as a source for facts, and WSJ publishing bad opinion pieces is irrelevant to the reliability of this outlet. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2: Per the above, it is only a host, so IT may not (technically) be an RS, the stuff its hosts might be. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  FYI, that’s inaccurate; it publishes op-eds, but it also publishes its own news stories, such as most of the articles I linked in my !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Technicaly my comment still takes that into account, it is not an RS what it hosts (hosts, not publishes) maybe. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  If I have understood you correctly, you are saying Option 2 for the opinion articles it hosts (ie, consider self published with reliability dependent on the author), Option 3 for everything else? BilledMammal (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  So it can be treated as a WP:SPS? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 but also wouldn't be opposed to option 4. The alleged falsehoods, at least to me, seem to be more based out of strong POV rather than outright fabrication (ex. multiple Palestinian and/or human-rights groups still blame Israel for the hospital explosion as well, and claim that the sources (mainly western intelligence/media) attributing blame to PIJ are inherently biased against Palestinians). The op-eds are also subject to author reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a result, deprecation seems a tad strong of a response.

All of that said, however, and while I understand WP:BIAS doesn't inherently make a source unreliable, the opinions expressed in the above pieces (primarily, the glorification of terrorism) and Mondoweiss' willingness to publish them strikes me as WP:FRINGE and make me heavily question the reliability of their own content and its usefulness as a proper info source on Wikipedia. The heavy usage of especially inflammatory rhetoric ("a colonizer is a colonizer, in uniform or out," "[the land] can only be returned to its rightful owners through bloodshed.") backs this up; as the nom stated, an normal editor expressing these views would more than likely find themselves the recipient of a WP:HATESPEECH complaint. Considering its in-practice status as Philip Weiss' personal blog, the news pieces seemingly amount to a WP:SPS as well, which further decreases any possible reliability. Finally, the limited overlap with Ron Unz (as described below) doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. The Kip 23:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Reading the perennial sources list, this overall seems like a pretty similar situation to Counterpunch; effectively an SPS with little oversight of opinion pieces, and some entries promoting extremist content. That one is currently listed as WP:GUNREL. The Kip 23:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

And further, as noted below; like the recently-deprecated Electronic Intifada and The Cradle, it appears Mondoweiss also has considerable reliance on multiple deprecated sources, especially Al Mayadeen and RT, as well as hosting articles from Max Blumenthal of The Grayzone. This makes me a bit more sympathetic towards deprecation. The Kip 01:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, those are highly concerning FortunateSons (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 They primarily produce opinion pieces and the poorly articulated arguments above for deprecation seem to come down to bias arguments because of opinionated statements and not issues of actual falsehoods being produced as news. BilledMammal's is especially egregious in this regard, trying to use articles saying that Israel has some responsibility in events prior to and after October 7th (which is a longstanding topic of consideration in both the news and more academic settings) as some sort of negative factor, when it is not.

Then using the 500 dead argument, which the entirety of the news media got wrong (largely because the original health ministry reporting in Arabic said 500 casualties and the first breaking news reporters in English of that mistranslated it as 500 killed, an unfortunate case of inter-lingual telephone and why breaking news pieces should be sparingly utilized). Then BilledMammal tries to use the discussion about tunnels under Al-Shifa, which are again a matter of quite public debate, especially considering the tunnels we know Israel themselves built under there in the 1980's.

Lastly, the piece about the Atlantic is quite clearly focusing on how the Atlantic editor is extremely biased toward Israel (and promotion of lies helping start the Iraq war) and uses that bias on Israel and their cultural identity as a reason to point out said person's unreliability. Now, the article may possibly be making a very oblique reference to the nonsense conspiracy about Jewish people owning the world, but that is very unclear from just a single line like that and the article itself just seems to put that in context of the editor's massive Israel propaganda supporting in the past, including in their own book publication. So, again, the Mondoweiss article seems biased against Israel and such information, but I'm seeing no evidence of anything outside of opinions being made, because it's an opinion-publishing site. Meaning that what matters is who is making said opinion in regards to WP:RS policy. Silverseren^C 00:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

trying to use articles saying that Israel has some responsibility in events prior to and after October 7th Can you clarify where you got that impression, because that's not my argument?

Regarding the specifics, I also did not use the "500 dead" argument; the closest I came is noting that they continued to refer to a "Breaking News" article that uses that figure months after it stopped being breaking news - although, I would note that we normally consider failing to correct inaccuracies when the inaccuracies are identified evidence of unreliability.

Finally, the existence of militant tunnels under al-Shifa is no longer a matter of debate - specifics of them are, such as whether they housed a command and control center and whether they connected to the hospital wards - but their existence was confirmed by reliable sources two days prior to the publishing of the article where Mondoweiss claimed Israel had presented no concrete evidence that they existed. BilledMammal (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Most news articles didn't correct the figure across all media, though some did flip flop across multiple different claims afterwards as statements by both the IDF and Hamas were debunked back and forth (such as the IDF originally using the video of a missile from a year prior). Nothing about the hospital blast is a negative for a specific source, because everyone got it both wrong on numbers and no one still knows who exactly is responsible, particularly after the New York Times investigation showing the missile came from the direction of Israel and not the opposite direction as originally claimed.

The usage of the tunnels is very much a matter of debate. As noted, the tunnels already existed, made by Israel in the 1980's. Whether they were at all used in a militant manner remains up for debate and is still debated in the media. Especially since those tunnels in question aren't connected to the hospital complex, but to a separate set of buildings nearby. The Washington Post continues to point out the lack of actual evidence presented by the IDF in an article from December 21st, a full month after the Mondoweiss one.

So, again, you're not bringing up anything of actual falsehoods, but open points of debate in the media in general, which only present Mondoweiss as being biased against Israel by their articles. Silverseren^C 01:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if you want to argue that it's reasonable to argue that Israel is the culprit despite reliable sources being in consensus that this is extremely improbable, Mondoweiss goes beyond doing that. Specifically, they claim that the evidence of complete Palestinian culpability has been largely debunked - that, at the very least, is indisputable false.

Regarding the tunnels, you're right that the usage is very much a matter of debate - but Mondoweiss' claim was not about the usage but the existence. BilledMammal (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. The nom raises what are essentially accusations of bias, but this does not address reliability. Essentially, a variation of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT (so it should never be used as a source for anything, ever)". The fact that some coverage may be distasteful to certain sensibilities does not make the source as a whole unreliable. It is hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to stifle or deprecate sources that depart from a preferred POV. In-text attribution is likely appropriate to address concerns regarding bias (as has been the community's conclusion in numerous prior discussions). Advocates for deprecation should familiarize themselves with what WP:RS actually requires. WillowCity^(talk) 02:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  With all due respect, while the original complaint has elements of IDLI, I feel as if though the nominator has since raised genuine concerns of fabrication/exaggeration in responses to Silverseren, and more importantly, as elaborated below in response to my own question, a worrisome degree of overlap with a wide variety of already-GUNREL and/or deprecated sources. This latter issue played a significant role in why Electronic Intifada and The Cradle were recently deprecated, and I would encourage you to take this into account.

  Also, regarding the sentence beginning with "It is hard to see..." I recommend you reword or strike so as not to violate WP:ASPERSIONS. Remember to WP:AGF. The Kip 03:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Did you actually read through nom's evidence? If so, please respond to my comment under theirs. VR _talk 16:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Your comment you're referencing under my !vote starts with I don't have time to go through all your evidence, so I'm not sure what the point of accusing other people of not having read the evidence is. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think The Kip may have confused me with the nom, given I was the one who had the discussion with Silverseren and replied them them below. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  That would be it, my bad. The Kip 04:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 for NPOV sake, and because bias complaints like this would knock out basically all sources in the I/P area (as is well known, for example, one large German news publisher requires its European employees to take an editorial stand on Israel). All sources have bias, all sources are wrong sometimes, and all sources fail in their job from time-to-time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. What I'm seeing in the OP's diffs can be addressed by Wikipedia's policies for op-eds/opinion pieces, rather than by total blacklisting or deprecation. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, the same isn't true for the pile of diffs that I have provided; most of those are labeled "news", and they have considerable inaccuracies - they are also the result of only a couple of hours of research, I have no doubt that are more detailed search would reveal far more. BilledMammal (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 Listed on RSP as NoCon after a bunch of discussions. Walls of text notwithstanding, this RFC appears out of the blue, rather than being referenced to some particular usage or ongoing discussion? Has MW been cited on WP for something alleged as fabrication? Biased certainly but that is not a reason to deprecate and deprecation should usually follow GU first. Its another of those news sites that mixes opinions with news so attribution will usually be necessary.Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I thought now was a good time. We haven't had an RfC about this yet and it's cited heavily in the topic area, so I'd rather get consensus before I start ripping citations to it out of BLPs/articles. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3. The website used to be essentially a blog, first a personal one and then a group one, and older articles should be judged through that frame. In more recent years, it has professionalised to some extent. It now includes content it calls "News", most of which is summarised from other sources (both reliable and unreliable, including deprecated sources) but with some original content. The latter may be occasionally useful with attribution, but I'd say if this is the only source it's not reliable enough to use alone and if there are other sources why use this one. Then there is content it calls "Opinion", and on the whole I'd say the fact it's published at this outlet is an indicator that it is not likely to be sufficiently of note for us to include it per due weight. However, some contributors are more significant (e.g. Mitchell Plitnick is a fairly significant voice that often publishes there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 while a few articles may indeed covered by “just” WP:Biased and/or a concerning proximity to Hate Speech, the regular presentation of things that are WP:Fringe at best and intentional misinformation at worst is worthy of depreciation, particularly in combination with the frequent use of sources that are depreciated by Wikipedia really does not help either. I am uncertain whether it can really by fully considered WP:SPS by someone who isn’t a subject-matter expert, but if it really is, that would just be the a secondary problem. In addition, based on some of the past statements linked, a use for BLP or politicised situations within the fog or war would be very reckless at best. While the concern regarding a lack of pro-Palestinian RS brought up by some is understandable, there are definitely better and more reliable sources that have the desired political leaning without the habitual misinformation.FortunateSons (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. I'm against deprecation which should be an exceptional measure reserved for sources regularly publishing deliberate falsehoods. My !vote is mostly due to the list of errors from u:BilledMammal's comment above (most of these errors are in news rather than opinion pieces). If they had been meticulous with their reporting, we could've lived with their extreme bias and other issues, but they aren't, and I'd rather not have to recheck their sourcing each time their articles are used. The association with and financing by Ron Unz doesn't help either. Alaexis_¿question? 12:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. I've read through the evidence, thought on this for a while, and this is where I land. I had no previous familiarity with this site, FWIW. I'm seeing evidence that a lot of Mondoweiss's content is verging on advocacy, and that a lot of their Op-Eds contain views are widely considered unacceptable and/or that contain factually inaccurate information. I'm not seeing evidence of their publishing, as news, information known to be inaccurate at the time; and that's really what we need if we're looking at deprecation. Their Op-Eds might be dreadful, but that's true of any number of news organizations, and has never been considered enough to deprecate; opinion pieces should just be treated as such, that is, unreliable for factual information and only usable at all if the author is considered a subject expert. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 A lot of different accusations have been made about the source. I have not looked at every reference but will comment on a few:

On its coverage of sexual violence by Hamas:

"In terms of disinformation, the main propaganda narrative Monodoweiss pushes is that there is no evidence that Palestinians raped Israelis on October 7th" - The first source provided is an account of how the family of Gal Abdush reacted to the NYT story about her. It includes links to her families responses which cast doubt on the NYT story. Editor VR has responded appropriately to this first article. The Mondoweiss story "CNN report claiming sexual violence on October 7 relied on non-credible witnesses, some with undisclosed ties to Israeli govt" was given as an example of Mondoweiss “cast[ing] doubt on the allegations of sexual violence” committed by Hamas. The Mondoweiss article examines the evidence cited in a CNN article about the violence. There is nothing wrong with a news source doing that type of journalism. At the end, Mondoweiss states "The analysis presented here is not meant to deny the possibility that sexual violence against women may have occurred on October 7. It is about fair reporting and about ensuring that there is sufficient and reliable evidence to support these serious allegations". Since then The Intercept has revealed that CNN runs its stories about the conflict past the IDF censor prior to publication so Mondoweiss’ scepticism about the CNN article may have been well founded.[61]

On Mondoweiss' treatment of the al-Ahli hospital explosion.

Our own article on the explosion provides no definitive apportionment of responsibility. The Mondoweiss source links to articles in NYT, Forensic Architecture and Channel 4 news which cast doubt on Israel’s evidence that Hamas was responsible.

Attempted bootstrapping of Mondoweiss based on the deprecation of sources such as RT and Electronic Intifada.

One of the cited articles does not defend RT as claimed. It says: "No doubt both Russia Insider and Russia Today are trying to make the US look bad and presumably, Kirby might be right in saying RT reporters don’t go after the Russian government when it bombs civilians" and "No doubt Russia Today is a slanted news source ...". Afaict Mondoweiss does not say Russiagate is a conspiracy theory. It may have implied that the NYT’s claim that Russia used an “adorable puppies” page on Facebook as part of its scheme was a "fringe conspiracy theory". Where do we stand on the “adorable puppies” story? 

On misinformation published by Mondoweiss.

The Mondoweiss story "Inside the “Wasps’ Nest”: the rise of the Jenin Brigade" was cited as an example. It is difficult to know whether the figure of 51 Palestinian killed by Israel is accurate. Our own article on this, Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2022, quotes the UN, OCHA Protection of Civilians Report as saying that Israel killed 41 Palestinians in the period 2 August to 15 August 2022. So the Mondoweiss figure is in the right area. Burrobert (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

On Mondoweiss' treatment of the al-Ahli hospital explosion:

The most significant issue with Mondoweiss' treatment of this is that they say that Israeli claims as to complete Palestinian culpability have been largely debunked. This is a falsehood; indeed, the opposite is true.

Attempted bootstrapping of Mondoweiss based on the deprecation of sources such as RT and Electronic Intifada:

While you mention EI in the lead of that paragraph, you make no mention of it in the paragraph - even if you're correct about RT, that means they are still considering a deprecated source with significant issues to be a bastion of truth.

As for RT, I believe you are incorrect. Looking at the totality of the article they appear to be downplaying the issues with that source, and they do present Russian interference in the US election as pseudoscience and analogous to creationism:

Like all forms of pseudoscience, Russiagate is an endlessly flexible theory. Whatever truth there might be in any of the claims, the reporting resembles the material I read as a child in some of the less rational UFO literature, or, to use another analogy, the opportunistic and incoherent arguments put out by creationists.

On misinformation published by Mondoweiss:

You're comparing apples to oranges there. The 2022 Gaza–Israel clashes took place between 5 and 7 of August, and took place in Gaza. The figures the OCHA provide cover both Gaza and the West Bank, for the period between 2 and 15 August. Even beyond that, your argument is somewhat bizarre; you're arguing that a source that provides significantly lower figures is evidence that there isn't a problem with the provisioning of these higher figures. BilledMammal (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This RfC is becoming hard to read, because of the long discussions under many of the votes. I will post my response in the Discussion section. Burrobert (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Continuing from Burrobert's examples, BilledMammal also wrote "They make frequent reference to Al Mayadeen", with four examples. Note first that there is nothing at all wrong with referring to Al Mayadeen with attribution and mainstream news sources do that all the time. Here is a random selection from the Washington Post: [62] [63] [64]. Looking at BM's examples, the third doesn't mention Al Mayadeen at all(?), and the other three use correct attribution. The second and fourth one even use "allegedly" in respect to Al Mayadeen's claim. The fourth one was an Al Mayadeen scoop: the 2017 Hamas charter before Hamas published it. MW cite a confirmation from Hamas, and the charter does match what Hamas published later. So, contrary to what BilledMammal claims, these examples show MW in a good light. Zero^talk 03:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Having read through this once again, I'm actually very concerned about the users who made the first claim Burrobert highlights above. I have not examined the totality of their coverage, but that example appears to be egregious source misrepresentation, and is the sort of thing we sanction people for at AE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  MondoWeiss, according to its search engine, has referred to Al-Mayadeen 97 times, 77 in news pieces. I've looked through the first three or four pages of hits (about 30 articles), and on the whole I agree with Zero/Burrobert's take: almost all of the uses are appropriate, and would not look out of place in a more mainstream news outlet. (Typical examples:[65][66][67].) However, with two exceptions from my sample, there is no attempt at identifying that Al-Mayadeen might be partisan (e.g. you'd expect "Hezbollah-linked TV station" or similar, as is the case in just one 2018 article). Frequently, you get a formulation like "An analyst on Lebanese Mayadeen television reported that---"[68], as if it's a neutral source, which in my view is unprofessional and slightly dangerous. But this in itself is not a reason to downgrade the source. (Other reasons raised in this conversation are though.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: If by users who made the first claim Burrobert highlighted above, you mean me, the person who made the first claim that Mondoweiss casted doubt on evidence of rape, my comment represented the sources accurately. Mondoweiss said about the NY Times in the first source that Although claiming its story proves that “the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7” the veracity of the New York Times story was undermined almost as soon as it was published [69] In other words, Mondoweiss didn't just say that Gal Abdush wasn't raped, they also said that there is not a broader pattern of gender-based violence on October 7th, and Mondoweiss' proof of this is that the family of one victim didn't believe she was raped. Except the YNet News interview (cited by Mondoweiss to mean the opposite of what it says) with Gal Abdush's mother and brother has them both acknowledging she was raped. [70] I would say Mondoweiss is the group pushing falsehoods here. Another source I provided has the headline Despite lack of evidence, allegations of Hamas ‘mass rape’ are fueling Israeli genocide in Gaza [71], in other words Monodoweiss pushes that there is no evidence that Palestinians raped Israelis on October 7th, so I don't see how I manipulated the source. Finally, for the CNN source Mondoweiss claims that CNN’s failure to adhere to professional and ethical standards of responsible journalism also raises questions regarding CNN’s possible complicity with a political campaign orchestrated by the Israeli Prime Minister’s office to perpetuate unverified claims of mass rape, and a larger effort to dehumanize Palestinians in order to justify the ongoing genocidal campaign in Gaza. In other words, CNN is complicit with Israeli propaganda, and the claims of mass rape are "unverified". This is despite CNN's reporting being WP:USEDBYOTHERS such as the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. I think it's fair to say that Mondoweiss dismisses claims of mass rape as being Zionist agitprop, and I don't see how I engaged in source manipulation if that's what you're accusing me of.

  The other claims Burrobert says they refuted aren't mine so I won't comment further on them. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not going to get deep into the weeds here; suffice to say that you need to not conflate opinion pieces and journalistic ones (the second quote you provide is from a opinion piece) and in the first case, it is fairly clear to a neutral observer that MW is challenging that story by NYT, and not the broader narrative. Whether they challenged the broader narrative elsewhere I don't know, and don't particularly care; what I am seeing is evidence of a lack of nuance and care in reading, typically brought about by a battleground attitude. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I've read the particular story [72] by the New York Times since I have a subscription. Gal Abdush is presented as a single example to introduce the story in the piece. The story then segues into: And The Times interviewed several soldiers and volunteer medics who together described finding more than 30 bodies of women and girls in and around the rave site and in two kibbutzim in a similar state as Ms. Abdush’s — legs spread, clothes torn off, signs of abuse in their genital areas. which leads into graphic descriptions of rape/sexual violence of several women who are not Gal Abdush. Mondoweiss' central point of contention is whether or not Hamas fighters engaged in systematic rape and sexual violence against Israeli women (this is the exact phrasing Mondoweiss used), and I think it is clear that they did.

  While Mondoweiss says a lot of true things in their story, such as the brother-in-law denying that Gal Abdush was raped, those things do not address the vast majority of evidence in the New York Times piece, such as other eyewitness testimony about the rapes from Sapir the 6 different locations the mass rapes occurred in, or Raz Cohen. It also says There is currently no trace of the video on the internet, which is patently false is it can be found with a simple web search. A Bing search for "woman who was raped and burned to death" has "hamas-massacre.net" as the second result with shows another very high-definition video of the dead body from the article. The reason why the New York Times only posted the low-resolution still image is because they cannot show a half-naked woman who has been raped & burned to death on their website for the same reason I can't directly post the link on Wikipedia. But the NY Times does mention the video in their article, and Mondoweiss is wrong on that front. Mondoweiss' finishes off the piece by then looking at a bunch of alleged social media posts from relatives and saying that because relatives may have seen the video and don't think it means rape, then the video isn't evidence of rape. In my opinion, this disproves nothing. It's Mondoweiss using hearsay instead of looking at the video to reach a conclusion themselves. It's trivial to find in a search engine in a few minutes, so I don't know why they didn't do it.

  The reason why I am getting into the weeds is because you're an admin active at WP:AE accusing me in an RfC of committing source manipulation and adding that my comment would be sanctionable there. But I think it's pretty clear that I'm saying that Mondoweiss didn't bother to look for the Gal Abdush video and their evidence refuting it is weak. And even if we believe them 100% that the video isn't proof of anything whatsoever, Mondoweiss didn't analyze the entire rest of the piece featuring other interviews + other examples of mass rape. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 per Zero (and my own comments scattered throughout this section).VR _talk 15:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 as thoroughly delineated in Chess's comments at the outset. Using this partisan propaganda outlet as a reliable source is contrary to our standards. Coretheapple (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 It is useless to cite it. Not a strong source. Its orientations and who stands behind it are known. Sakiv (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  Could you explain why it’s not 4 with this explanation? Otherwise, I agree FortunateSons (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  This editor has been topic-banned. Zero^talk 09:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2 I think they are decent muckrakers. To give an example, the other day Yedioth Ahronoth, the leading Israeli daily, published an investigative report, authored by Ronen Bergman and Yoav Zitun, concluding that Israeli Defense Forces had essentially applied the Hannibal Directive on October 7 – a controversial doctrine that authorises the Israeli military to kill Israeli hostages along with hostage takers. According to Bergman and Zitun's report, it is unknown how many hostages were killed by the Israeli military on October 7, but the number appears to be substantial: in Ynet, the paper's online portal, Zitun said last month: Casualties fell as a result of friendly fire on October 7, but the IDF believes that beyond the operational investigations of the events, it would not be morally sound to investigate these incidents due to the immense and complex quantity of them that took place in the kibbutzim and southern Israeli communities due to the challenging situations the soldiers were in at the time. For much of the current conflict in the Middle East, you had to struggle pretty hard to find any reporting on such matters in leading Western media outlets. My point here is that what you were able to read in Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel's leading daily, last week, and in Middle East Eye last month, you could have read in Mondoweiss three months ago: A growing number of reports indicate Israeli forces responsible for Israeli civilian and military deaths following October 7 attack. The English-language mainstream media pretty much refused to address how many Israelis were killed by Israeli friendly fire on Oct. 7, until very recently: New York Times Dec. 27, Haaretz Jan. 8, Associated Press Jan. 11. In conclusion, I think Mondoweiss is part of the spectrum we should cover. It is a serious site – it's not the Daily Mail publishing clickbait – and we should bear in mind that all our sources are occasionally wrong: mainstream Western sources (and Western politicians) repeated outright and inflammatory falsehoods for months. I'd rather have a broader range of opinion, including the odd mistaken view (which in any event can be balanced by others), than a situation where the truth is shut out. --Andreas JN466 15:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, it is not correct that you could have read the same stuff in Mondoweiss three months ago. The Mondoweiss piece you cite is a "thumb-sucker." Pure speculation, and it is anonymous and largely based on Israeli media. It is unheard-of for a reliable source (by Wikipedia standards) to use anonymous "reporting." Even if Mondoweiss had been permitted to be used as a reliable source at the time of publication, I doubt very much that a speculative, anonymous report would have passed muster here. That is little more than a blog item and anonymous blogs are not reliable sources. We should be striving for the highest quality sources given the sensitivity of the I/P articles, and not lowering our standards so as to use blogs with an overt ideological agenda. Coretheapple (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 They're definitely biased but I don't think there's much evidence presented here that they're unreliable for facts in their news content. Loki (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 Indisputably a propaganda website, and we do not use propaganda websites as sourcing. In blogs such as this, the line between fact and fancy is thin, and their trafficking in fringe conspiracy theories bears this out. We don't use Mintnews for the same reason. The example above concerning the "Hannibal Directive" works against using Mondoweiss. The facts are unclear to this day, and reputable sources have dealt with that aspect of 10/7 responsibly. To no surprise, given its agenda (minimizing 10/7 and attacking Israel) it made a mention of the Hannibal Directive in speculative fashion earlier than reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid. We don't rush into print when the Daily Mirror or NY Post splatters something on Page One and likewise, especially in a controversial topic, it behooves us to utilize high quality sources for extraordinary claims, not anonymous speculation in a blog with an extreme agenda. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

How accurate is a statement like "we do not use propaganda websites as sourcing" I wonder? Sean.hoyland - talk 14:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no question that we (the royal we, not you and me) use all kinds of crap as sourcing, and that assumes there is any sourcing at all. I recently spent considerable time and energy to obtain removal of an article on a mythical "crime family" that existed only in the imagination of the now-vanished editor who created it. There was sourcing, but none of it supported the existence of the subject of the article. I then found that that there was an entire template listing articles "related" to that mythical crime famiiy. More time down the drain. So sure, propaganda is used. Blogs are used. Coretheapple (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

We're not supposed to and this is a good first step. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure "we're not supposed to" is actually the case. The RfC:_China Daily case suggests that even when a source is operated by a Central Propaganda Department, there is wiggle room, a case by case approach to usage. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

That proves my point. We use outright propaganda, in much the same way as we tell our readers about "crime families" that don't exist (and we do so for many years). If Wikipedia existed during the 1930s, we might have used Der Stürmer or the Völkischer Beobachter. Hopefully we try not to have articles about nonexistent crime families, and likewise hopefully too we can strive for a higher standard of sourcing for contentious topics going forward, not using propaganda organs even if they do provide articles that aren't lies or spin on occasion. Coretheapple (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the comparison of Mondoweiss to Der Stürmer and Völkischer Beobachter, but we would only be relying on those outlets in your counterfactual as Nazi Germany used the threat of force to make people publicly support those publications. Unlike Baidu Baike, Wikipedia does not have to take propaganda at face-value. Being hosted in the United States gives the WMF a right to delegate that authority to its userbase. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4 as per the topic starter. Using propaganda outlets is not a proper approach as it may mislead readers of Wikipedia. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 as far as I can see their news is generally reliable and I think their media analysis is especially useful even if it can sometimes be a bit off. The opinion pieces wouldn't be allowed in Wikipedia anyway. If some news appears - well I won't say exceptional because both sides have committed exceptional strocities - lets say debateable I'd say a second source which uses a reasonably independent first source would be enough to allow it. Anyway always attribute if used on its own. NadVolum (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. Mondoweiss is an important outlet for whatever news does not find its way into sources we regard as reliable because mainstream which, in the I/P area, means The New York Times, Haaretz, The Times of Israel, Ynet, Jerusalem Post etc., that is sources that systematically represent the standard Israeli narrative and underplay, when not ignoring or downcasing information from the Palestinian side. The reportage of the last four has been highly emotional, and times gung-ho, in its victimism (understandable, but the 93,000 deaths and casualties in Gaza are an abstraction, not a matter of in each case individual lives, as is, again understandably, the case in Israeli reportage). The point is, to what degree are we, by systematically deprecating a source like Mondoweiss, which provides a dissenting and, yes, Jewish perspective on Israel to a diasporic constituency and a general global readership, privileging the dominant Western narrative? Back in 1937, Sir Ronald Storrs in his classic Orientations wrote about the failure of the large Arab majority to have their views represented:

The Arab of Palestine therefore feels himself under an overwhelming inferiority in the presentation of his case to the conscience of the world. He is aware that he has not the ability, the organization, least of all the material resources or the audience for effective propaganda. . . . Against the scientifically controlled publicity of the two major continents he has about as much chance as had the Dervishes before Kitchener's machine guns at Omdurman'. (pp421-422)

i.e. 48 dead vs 12,000 Arabs. Things haven't changed much since Storr's day. Deprecation is to be avoided if only because it allows the lazy to repudiate very good reportage (Jonathan Ofir's use of what Hebrew newspapers write, for example).Nishidani (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Mondoweiss is an important outlet for whatever news does not find its way into sources we regard as reliable because mainstream... that is sources that systematically represent the standard Israeli narrative and underplay, when not ignoring or downcasing information from the Palestinian side. I want to strongly dispute the idea we need to use weak fringe sources because mainstream sources are pro-Israel. We have plenty of mainstream Western sources which have excellent I/P cover and do not represent the "standard Israeli narrative" (I'm thinking of Bethan McKernan in The Guardian, Wafaa Shurafa's reporting in The Independent, Clarissa Ward for CNN, for example); we have some strong regional media outlets (e.g. a recent RfC re-affirmed al-Jazeera as a reliable source); and editors can use independent sources such as +972 or Forensic Architecture for some of the detail that the bigger platforms might miss. In short, there's no reason to relax our standards simply because the NYT coverage is inadequate. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I also note that Jonathan Ofir's pieces are all labelled opinion, so even if we go with option 2 or 3 we'd need a very strong reason to think his opinion is noteworthy in our articles. I note he has also published in GlobalResearch[73] which doesn't give me confidence. Yes, some opinion in MW might on occasion be noteworthy so we should avoid deprecation, but this isn't the best example. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive !vote and offtopic follow-up. Further behavioral concerns can be brought to WP:AE or WP:ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Option 1: (Personal attack removed) --Te og kaker (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC) Hey, could we please keep this civil and assume good faith? FortunateSons (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC) A more polite rephrasing of that would be good, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC) It seems questionable to directly accuse me of being a propagandist, especially with a derogatory term (wikt:hasbara) linked to my perceived ethnicity/nationality. Unz says Hasbara is a multi-billion dollar, tightly-coordinated Jewish campaign carried out by several Israeli government ministries and engaged in internationally by hundreds of Jewish organisations whose sole purpose is to silence criticism of anything Jewish and to promote a positive image of Israel abroad. [74] I'd appreciate it if the above !voter can clarify whether or not I'm being accused of being part of an international Jewish conspiracy to shape public opinion. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC) Let's not let this get out of hand. Te og kaker didn't mention names and only stated their concerns about "The issue here seems to be..." WP:AAGF - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC) Well, Hasbara is a common antisemitic talking point/dog whistle when it comes to discussions on I/P, so I believe the question is acceptable, even if it is pointed. Citing a source that shows an antisemitic use is reasonable in this case, particularly if another reader may be unaware of the context. I could (and consciously didn’t) ask the same thing, but that was my attempt at letting them retract their statement as I commented first, and others can choose to engage with content that a reasonable person can perceive to be offensive in a variety of ways and remain within the scope of Wikipedia policy. FortunateSons (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC) WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:AGF - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC) According to the page on casting aspersions you linked, An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This feels like an argument rather than a productive discussion. It is clear that @FortunateSons and @Chess are casting apersions against @Te og kaker suggesting they may be motivated by anti-Jewish racism without evidence. It is less clear whether or not @Te og kaker is casting aspersions with the concerns they have raised. Another user mentioned similar concerns saying "what I am seeing is evidence of a lack of nuance and care in reading, typically brought about by a battleground attitude." and mentioning "egregious source misrepresentation, [...] the sort of thing we sanction people for at AE." I myself have similar concerns about this. - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Aspersions require the accusations to be “without evidence”. This is not the case here. If you disagree, feel free to take the appropriate measures. FortunateSons (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC) And what evidence do you have to suggest that @Te og kaker is an antisemite? An incredible thing to suggest. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Me and others have elaborated above and below, and as the issue is resolved, I don’t believe that continuing this conversation is productive. FortunateSons (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC) The issue of the aspersions cast on @Te og kaker has not been resolved. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Also I don't know why this "Unz" definition of hasbara is being presented. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC) I have redacted the attack on other editors. I assume this !vote will be given the weight any !vote that does not address the source is generally granted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC) I don't agree that was a personal attack and I don't believe it should have been redacted. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Calling those who believe that a source is not reliable Israeli propagandists is clearly an attack. They didn't state their concerns, they directly attacked other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4 per above, particularly BilledMammal etc. JM (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 I don't think there's much evidence presented here that they're unreliable for facts in their news content. per Loki and amalysis above by Burrobert and comments by VR. Additional general obsevation about coverage of sexual violence, both on and off WP. People are speaking as though either all the alleged sexual violence is either wholly true (regardless of how improbable and/or uncorroborated), and to approach the topic with a measure of caution and scepticism is somehow inherently despicable, rather than being the proper job of journalism, or all of it is wholly false. Very little forensic analysis has occurred and it will probably be some time before the true extent of such violence is known. Accusations of sexual violence are commonplace in the early days of conflicts, ocassionally, though not often, they turn out to have been understated. Pincrete (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 - zero basis for deprecating or even listing it as generally unreliable, not liking a significant viewpoint does not somehow make it less significant, and Mondoweiss frequently publishes significant viewpoints. Not liking a stance on any topic, be it Syria or Israel and Palestine, has nothing to do with reliability. And thats whats been presented here, individual articles that individual editors object to for whatever reason. That is emphatically not a reason to deprecate. nableezy - 20:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2: As a site that principally hosts opinions, the usual provisions apply. Otherwise, no strong evidence has been provided that the site seriously misleads or plays loose with the facts in non-opinion material; instead, the emphasis of the case brought against it is one of bias and spin, which has limited bearing on reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Mondoweiss is biased, but I did not see significant evidentiary support for the proposition presented here that MW are unreliable for facts in their news reporting. I think Mondoweiss is usable, depending on context. Ijon Tichy (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 - The current status of Mondoweiss in WP:Perennial sources is that "Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." However, a close examination of the evidence provided, particularly by BilledMammal, underscores significant concerns about Mondoweiss's tendency to engage misrepresentation of sources, and publication of information with minimal fact-checking. For example, Mondoweiss's coverage of issues such as sexual violence and its approach to reporting on the Al-Ahli hospital explosion demonstrate a pattern of editorial practices that do not meet basic standards for reliability and verifiability. Such practices include the uncritical reliance on sources that are themselves unreliable or have been deprecated by Wikipedia, as well as the publication of speculative analyses without adequate support from credible, independent sources. Given these concerns, Option 3 (generally unreliable) seems completely justified. However, the extent and nature of the issues observed with Mondoweiss combined with the frequency of its current use in articles, could warrant Option 4 (deprecation). Marokwitz (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Zero. I am a little worried about BilledMammal's classification of MondoWeiss's excellent piece on the deficiencies of the New York Times' reporting on the death of Gal Abdush. Most of the article relates to the way the American paper misled the family of the victim and published fabricated quotes by them.--Boynamedsue (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4. It's a propaganda website or collection of blogs. It isn't reputable. Chess convicingly points out how it publishes disinformation since October 7. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I mean, even if that's true, it's rather extreme to blacklist an entire site because they've been publishing bad information for the last 6 months. That's a reason not to use anything written in the last 6 months, it's not a reason to ban everything this publication has ever published from being linked on Wikipedia, which is what you're voting for.
• 2 or 3. Same as E-I, I don't trust their news as reliable, but they are cited by scholars. I did the same as E-I, searched my little pile of PDFs, and I see Mondoweiss cited by Ronit Lentin, Nadim Rouhana, Nur Masalha, Rashid Khalidi, Areej Sabbagh-Khoury, and Rosemary Sayigh among others. I'd allow its use for WP:EXPERTSPS and for articles cited by scholars. It's not generally reliable but don't deprecate. Levivich (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Mondoweiss)

• With the caveat that I've never read Mondoweiss in my life; the vast majority of links I'm seeing above are to opinion pieces, already covered by WP:OPED. Is there evidence that Mondoweiss's journalistic pieces contain misinformation? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: These opinion pieces are cited in talk pages in the topic area to support claims about the conflict. [75] [76] [77] [78] They are also cited in multiple articles. [79] [80] [81] [82] Ditto for their "media analysis" pieces. [83] WP:RSEDITORIAL is a guideline and you can say that it should cover this, but in practice it has and does not. An WP:RSP entry would make it clearer. How would you feel about deprecating their opinion pieces? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 08:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  More examples of their opinion pieces being cited in Wikipedia articles. [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] These are all 2023. I can find more if you'd like. I think 'media analysis' should also be deprecated if that is a workable compromise. I think we should be explicitly deprecating Mondoweiss opinions in order to prevent their improper use in articles. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 08:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not opposed to adding an RSP entry about their opinion pieces assuming there is sufficient discussion here, but what would that achieve? Bad sources that are marked as such at RSP are frequently used in talk page discussion and in articles, and deprecation won't stop that, only blacklisting would. I don't yet see evidence of the need to deprecate media analysis pieces. The one you link [89] appears to be based on an opinion piece in Haaretz; certainly it shares a POV with that opinion piece. Are we talking about deprecating Haaretz too? I assume not; we just treat their OpEds with caution as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  It would achieve a blanket rule that Mondoweiss opinion pieces are bad and make them easier to remove in a very contentious topic area. I don't think we should treat Mondoweiss OpEds with caution, I think they're so extreme and contain enough disinformation that we should be blanket discouraging them from articles. Sort of like how WP:COUNTERPUNCH had to be explicitly declared as unreliable despite exclusively being a vehicle for opinion pieces, as it was heavily used in this topic area as a source. [90] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 08:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  “The one you link” is a little confusing here as Chess linked multiple examples and I can’t actually see where this one is cited on WP. But this particular example is a good example of why a MondoWeiss opinion piece (blog post) is rarely due. It’s Philip Weiss’ personal take on an op Ed published in Ha’aretz. Why would we cite this fringe person’s opinion rather than the more noteworthy Ha’aretz op Ed? Designation as generally unreliable wouldn’t stop that, of course, but it would create a red flag that would lead to it being replaced or removed more quickly. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I’m opposed to deprecating their opinion content. I think there could be times when opinion there might be due (eg if by a notable commentator or received secondary attention). Designation as generally unreliable is sufficient signal that opinion there can be presumed not to be due, while allowing for exceptions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Their efforts to cast doubt on the allegations of sexual violence extends beyond their opinion articles; for example, CNN report claiming sexual violence on October 7 relied on non-credible witnesses, some with undisclosed ties to Israeli govt BilledMammal (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Wanted to share something I found while researching this. Mondoweiss has received grants from Ron Unz. This comes from a conservative think-tank but I checked one of the 990 forms and Mondoweiss is indeed there. Of course he's a well known Holocaust denier whose Unz Review has been deprecated. Interestingly, Mondoweiss stopped disclosing their donors lately [91]. Alaexis_¿question? 10:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That same 990 shows a $10,000 donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. The UNZ Foundation was dissolved in 2017 and Mondoweiss did not receive money from it in that year or since. Zero^talk 13:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation to my knowledge has not acclaimed the killing of Jewish people. Mondoweiss on the other hand shares that with Unz, so it's a more plausible they've been financially influenced by neo-Nazis. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Speculation. Selfstudier (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Both Mondoweiss and neo-Nazis agree that murdering Jewish people in Israeli is OK. They have a lot more in common. Weiss has also cited Unz News before, [92] including noted Holocaust denier Philip Giraldi to say that Jews control the United States. [93] [94] Weiss is a fan of Unz on a personal level as well and published opinion pieces supporting him after the big donation. [95] Columnists such as John Mearsheimer have published in both Mondoweiss and Unz. [96] [97] People in this discussion are going to bring up that Philip Weiss is Jewish, but so is Ron Unz. That didn't stop Unz from creating a news site with columnists like Andrew Anglin denying the Holocaust and it doesn't mean Philip Weiss' site can't be part of the same antisemitic network as well. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Putting Mondoweiss and neo-Nazis in the same basket is really quite disgraceful. But anyway this is just a distraction. Do we investigate the writings of the editor of the NYT to decide whether the NYT is a reliable source? Zero^talk 07:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The editor of the NYT also has considerably less power over what the paper doesn’t and publish as opposed to Philip Weiss and his personal blog. This also again leads into (in my opinion) one of two genuine issues here that present an argument for GUNREL, rather than just bias - Mondoweiss is in many ways a WP:SPS, rather than a proper media outlet.

The other issue is its considerable overlap with other GUNREL and deprecated sources, but BilledMammal’s entry below elaborates further on that. The Kip 08:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You have no evidence that Weiss changes the content of articles that Mondoweiss publishes, except those he writes himself. He probably chooses which articles to publish, but that concerns bias and not reliability. The bottom line is that authors are responsible for what they write and there is nothing written so far to challenge that. Zero^talk 12:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, your position is to treat it like we treat WP:COUNTERPUNCH? BilledMammal (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Chess mentions John Mearsheimer, as a 'columnist', and not the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, as if that were proof of their remarkable theories about Mondoweiss. Good grief. His name is proof of the quality of many contributions to Mondoweiss.Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago is a lot longer than columnist, so I didn't feel like using his full title (I'm not his student so I don't have to use honorifics). Anyways, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor Mearsheimer is also as of January 4th, 2024, OK with having his content published in Unz. [98] Either he's not selective of where he allows his content to be published or he likes to publish in anti-Semitic outlets. Both of these possibilities count against Mondoweiss. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thats a reprint from his substack. Please dont make such insinuations about living people, it is both factually wrong and against our BLP policy. nableezy - 18:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The article says at the bottom (Republished from Substack by permission of author or representative). In other words, he gave his permission to be published in Unz. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Or he didnt and he just allows articles on his substack to republished by anybody who wants to. nableezy - 20:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If he just allows articles on his substack to republished by anybody who wants to, then that's identical to what I said, which is: either he's not selective of where he allows his content to be published or he likes to publish in anti-Semitic outlets. It's one or both of the two. If it's the first one (as you say), then his name being in Mondoweiss is not proof of the quality of Mondoweiss. If it's the second (which I will concede is less likely), it's more evidence of Mondoweiss' bias.

Either way, this isn't a BLP violation as I provided inline citations to all of the claims I'm making, unless you don't believe Unz is anti-Semitic. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Except the fact that he wrote the column for Mondoweiss and they did not simply republish something he wrote elsewhere. Mearsheimer has never written anything for Unz, despite the characterization above that he has published work for both Mondoweiss and Unz. No, he has not, Unz has reprinted material he wrote and published elsewhere, whereas he actually has written for Mondoweiss. nableezy - 05:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't, as a desultory reader of one or two pieces a day in Mondoweiss for nearly two decades, find anything vaguely supporting this absurd attempt to pass it off as some anti-semitic, holocaust-denying, pro-Nazi pastiche. Unbelievable. have you any idea of the contrarian vigour of Jewish and Israeli thinkers, journalists and others?Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• I suppose this is somewhat covered with the above information on Unz, but one thing I do have a question about: one of the key things that led to the recent deprecations of The Electronic Intifada and The Cradle, which covered the same topic area as Mondoweiss, was their overlap with/reliance on other already-deprecated sources, such as RT, Sputnik, The Grayzone, Al Mayadeen, and others. Is there any similar overlap between Mondoweiss and other deprecated sites? The Kip 23:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  It seems they do.

  They cite Electronic Intifada regularly, in both news and opinion articles (eg. 1, 2) and in 2021 published this salute to ‘Electronic Intifada’, where they described their activities as "truth telling".

  References to the Grayzone are less frequent but they do still happen (eg. 1). They also share a number of authors with that site, including Dan Cohen (Mondoweiss profile, Grayzone profile), Hamzah Raza (Mondoweiss profile, Grayzone profile), and Max Blumenthal himself (Mondoweiss profile).

  They make frequent reference to Al Mayadeen (eg. 1, 2, 3, 4)

  They republish works, both in whole and in part, from Counterpunch under their "News" header (eg. 1, 2, 3)

  They make frequent reference to Press TV (eg. 1, 2, 3)

  They make frequently make use of Russia Today, including through extensive excerpts, and have defended the source (eg. 1, 2, 3)

  Effectively, it seems if we have a deprecated source that aligns with their bias, they have almost certainly have a connection to it; for example, it seems they also use Telesur and The Unz Review - this last one is particularly relevant, given the evidence Alaexis presented above them receiving donations. I wasn't able to check for Sputnik or The Cradle, as both of those terms returned too many irrelevant results when searching for them.

  I will note that I haven't checked the accuracy of the claims they are using these sources for - but I don't think that's overly important as relying on extremely problematic sources is a huge red flag. BilledMammal (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that’s rather concerning. The Kip 01:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, that reliance is highly concerning. FortunateSons (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see how this calls for deprecation. I really dislike this daisy-chaining approach. This doesn't seem like grounds to deprecate the source as a whole; rather, an editor could simply go to the MW source that's cited, see if it relies on/cites to a deprecated source, and then, if so, use that as a basis to remove individually-offending pieces. We're all grown-ups here who shouldn't be afraid of a little legwork. WillowCity^(talk) 18:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Part of being a reliable source is knowing how to identify sources which peddle misinformation; if you’re unable to do so then that raises serious questions about your own reliability, as it suggests that the editorial process behind all your articles, including those that don’t explicitly rely on such sources, is flawed.

  On it’s own, perhaps this wouldn’t be enough to justify Option 3 or Option 4 - reasonable minds could differ - but when we consider it in the context of the other evidence I have presented, of Mondoweiss misrepresenting sources and peddling misinformation, it is. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Are you saying unreliable sources or deprecated sources are false 100% of the time? Of course not. So could Mondoweiss not be citing Press TV etc when these sources are true and not citing them when these sources are not? VR _talk 07:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  How do you know when a deprecated source, a source that peddles misinformation, is presenting factual information? BilledMammal (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  RS regularly cite Press TV: BBC News[99][100], CNN[101][102] (in both these examples, CNN bases the entire article based on Press TV reporting) VR _talk 15:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  It could be, but I don’t think it is here. Citing something critically can be done well, but based on the size of the org and what is linked here as well as the regular reliance on only one or two unreliable sources, it doesn’t appear to be good enough at determining truthfulness to be considered even close to reliable. FortunateSons (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Below are my responses to a post made under my vote above:

• Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion: An editor has said that it is “indisputably false” that evidence of complete Palestinian culpability for for Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion has been largely debunked. Since the meaning of the claim is unclear I will stick to what Mondoweiss says in its article published on 9 November. “The New York Times has shown how Israel’s supposed evidence did not add up, and so have Forensic Architecture and Channel 4 News”. So its article is pointing out that, as at 9 November, reliable sources had dismissed the evidence provided by Israel that the explosion was the result of a Palestinian missile. It was a reasonable position to hold.
• Use of Deprecated sources by Mondoweiss: One of the arguments used by editors against Mondoweiss has been that it uses deprecated sources such as RT. I looked at one reference provided by these editors and found that the article was in fact dismissive of RT, saying "No doubt both Russia Insider and Russia Today are trying to make the US look bad and presumably, Kirby might be right in saying RT reporters don’t go after the Russian government when it bombs civilians" and "No doubt Russia Today is a slanted news source …”. In a follow up, an editor said “in the article [Mondoweiss] appear to be downplaying the issues with [RT]”. Since the editor did not provide an example of this, I can’t respond. The editor also said Mondoweiss “present[s] Russian interference in the US election as pseudoscience and analogous to creationism”. Firstly, this appears to have nothing to do with RT. Secondly, some quite respectable sources have expressed scepticism of the arguments about used by Russiagaters. Thirdly, Mondoweiss does not say that Russiagate does not exist (“Whatever truth there might be in any of the claims”). Its criticism is of the reporting and “the opportunistic and  incoherent arguments” made regarding it.
• Counting the number of Palestinians killed by Israel in 2022: An editor took issue with Mondoweiss’ statement that “The Israeli onslaught on Gaza … took the lives of 51 Palestinians”. The article was published on 8 November 2022. To refute the figure the editor used sources dated 13 August and 24 August 2022. Given that the Mondoweiss article supports its statement by linking to an article dated 9 October, the figure of 51 refers to casualties from August onwards and so articles published in August cannot be used to disprove the figure. Burrobert (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a point about Mondoweiss's reportage on rapes. The core issue these pieces reflect critically on is the extremely diffuse meme, from day 1, that Hamas made mass rape one of the orders of the day to their militants. I have no reason to doubt many such cases exist, but scrupulous reportage would note that many of the early accounts are extremely confusing and contradictory. On wikipedia we have accepted that Hamas engaged in deliberate mass rape, that is the accepted narrative. But, and this is not by any means to be read as some attempt to exculpate Hamas from the terroristic killings they enacted that day, the invasion consisted apparently of trained Hamas operatives given specific plans, and a very large number of Gazans who exploited the destruction of the separation barrier, many of whom also ran amok. And, at least one Israeli eyewitness (whose account is still confused) states that Hamas militants did not undertake the rape he saw (Technical accounts tell us the core Hamas groups were supposed to have retired back to their tunnels by 10:30 am, within 4 hours).

"And that's it, and we hid in the bush for 9 hours bush with terrorists around us. These terrorists were not from the Nukhba unit [Hamas' elite force]. They were Gazans, civilians, with knives, axes, I don't think they had firearms, but there were many terrorists around us who did have firearms," he (Raz Cohen) said. Nir (Shoko) Cohen, 'He pulled out a knife, stabbed her, continued to rape her a bit more, and then he let her go' Ynet 17 January 2024

News outlets like Mondoweiss rightly highlight anomalies, contradictions (trauma militates against accuracy, naturally) in the major narrative set in concrete by the mainstream. That is not denialism. It is simple professionalism, allowing their contributors to clarify that much of what we are told is (as it is to me) confusing, despite the unanimity.Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of news reporting

Since a few editors have noted that many of the examples come from opinion pieces, I've looked specifically at news published by MW. They have reporters on the ground in Gaza and in Israel, and I'm sure that most of what they write is true (however that's also the case for RT). The problem is their news also read like a blog rather than a normal news source. In particular they are prone to making rather extreme statements in their news articles too. Here are some examples, I don't think this is something we'd want to add to Wikipedia based on MW

• all Zionist parties ... can be proud of ... converting Israel to a Full-Dictatorship [103].
• There is apparently intensification of fascist persecutions against critical voices in Israel [104]

They write that Mondoweiss editors select content for the site on the basis of our shared commitment to news professionalism as well as justice for Palestinians. This is more fitting for an advocacy organisation rather than a media outlet. Alaexis_¿question? 13:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• The full quote is When the last Netanyahu – Ben-Gvir government was established, they proudly labeled themselves a Full-Right government. Now, with full public unity between all Zionist parties for the destruction of Gaza, they can be proud of a much bigger achievement, converting Israel to a Full-Dictatorship.
• The second quote is an editor's comment explaining why the author of an article requested that their name not be published. Using the term "fascism" is provocative, but reliable outlets have published stories about the backlash against those outside Israel who have criticised Israel's actions. Some have termed it McCarthyism.[105] [106][107] The relationship between McCarthyism and Fascism has been remarked upon.[108][109] The Intercept has published articles about censorship/crackdown within Israel. It reported that there are "eight subjects the media are forbidden from reporting on in Israel". Also, "Since Israel’s war on Hamas started, more than 6,500 news items were either completely censored or partially censored by the Israeli government". Full censorship is not required because "People self-censor, people do not even try to report the stories they know won’t get through ... And that is really showing right now in how little regular Israelis are seeing in the press about what is happening in Gaza to Palestinians".[110] In November last year the Israeli Chief Military Censor "issued a complaint with senior IDF officers that sources close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have exerted extraordinary pressure on him to prevent publication of various events in the media".[111]
• The support for "justice for Palestinians'" is admirable and an indication of the outlet's bias, which editors would take into account when assessing its articles. A similar bias exists for Jewish outlets. For example, The Forward states that it "acquires and publishes informative, enlightening content that expresses its enduring commitments to social justice, Yiddish and Jewish culture, and the welfare of the Jewish people worldwide ".[112] Another admirable sentiment. The Times of Israel says "We aim for the site to serve as a platform for constructive debate regarding the challenges facing Israel, the region and the Jewish people.[113] Nothing wrong with that attitude, just a bias that editors would assess when using the outlet. Burrobert (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Re the first item, this is the full quote indeed, but my concern was with the characterisation of Israel as a dictatorship. This is a pretty extraordinary claim, as fascist dictatorships are not usually known for allowing courts to strike down the dictator's powers [114]. Of all criticism levied at Israel (human rights violations, apartheid, etc), this is pretty rare. I'm not sure whether they mean it as a rhetorical device or as a serious characterisation - but that's precisely the problem as reliable sources usually don't use such language without really strong evidence or attribution. And it's their reliability that we're discussing. Re the third point, fair enough. Alaexis_¿question? 19:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Burrobert, you're right that many reliable sources focus on a certain region or topic and it's perfectly okay. The issue here is that MW only focus on one aspect of justice for Palestinians. Having looked at dozens of their news articles I haven't seen any criticism of Hamas and the criticism of PA, when it does appear, is mostly about their collaboration with Israel. Alaexis_¿question? 09:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Burrobert’s third bullet point here. Partisan sources can be reliable. But the first two bullet points affirm the key issue Alaexis was raising: that items tagged as “news” are (at least sometimes) in fact opinion pieces. As a minimum, what we should take from that is that the site should be treated as opinion site and not routinely used as a source for facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

What is interesting is that "news" and "opinion" are intermixed. For example, "Tracing my queer consciousness from Palestine to the US, and back again" is labeled as "news" but it is quite self-evidently nothing of the sort. I think at the very least we need to treat the entire site as opinion pieces. BilledMammal (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: plenty of news reporting is often biased and mixed with opinions. For example, Israeli newspapers (including Times of Israel) have been casually calling "terrorist" any Palestinian who acts violently (sometimes even said Palestinian is not affiliated with any group[115]). That's obviously POV language we wouldn't use on wikipedia per WP:TERRORIST. This is in contrast to more professional news organizations, like BBC News, which explain that using such words implies taking sides in a conflict. VR _talk 17:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I have very little faith in their editorial review which go beyond WP:BIAS and regularly WP:Fringe. At best, they really shouldn’t be used for anything related to BLP, Russia and Israel, at worst (and IMO this part is most likely) a full depreciation may be in order. FortunateSons (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Addition, as brought up above: even insofar as the source is not generally depreciated, anything that comes from an anonymous contributor should absolutely not be used. As there is a history of at least highly questionable reporting and intentional or unintentional failures in the editorial process (discussed at length above), a lack of ability to identify the contributor would make any further considerations effectively impossible. FortunateSons (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "fascist persecutions" of critical voices in Isreael, The Observer, which functions as the Sunday edition of The Guardian, reported the following story a couple of days ago:

• "‘It is a time of witch hunts in Israel’: teacher held in solitary confinement for posting concern about Gaza deaths – Meir Baruchin, who was fired and jailed for criticising the military, says that many who agree with him are afraid to go public"
• Quote: "An unlikely charge of intent to commit treason landed Meir Baruchin, a grey-haired, softly spoken history and civics teacher, in the solitary confinement wing of Jerusalem’s notorious “Russian Compound” prison in early November. The evidence compiled by police who handcuffed him, then drove to his apartment and ransacked it as he watched, was a series of Facebook posts he’d made, mourning the civilians killed in Gaza, criticising the Israeli military, and warning against wars of revenge."
• Needless to say, the man was also fired from his job.

Andreas JN466 09:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

If The Observer is used as a source, at that time we can deal with their reliability, and whether they meet the high standards that we should strive for in contentious topic areas.. Mondoweiss is the topic of this discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the point is not to challenge the reliability of The Observer but to assert that Mondoweiss's claim of "fascist persecutions" isn't as implausible as the OP made it sound. Loki (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; that's the takeaway I got. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

But note the Observer doesn’t use the word “fascist”; it presents the facts. An opinion piece might then argue that this is “fascist”, but a serious news organisation wouldn’t casually use that word in its own voice in a report. The MW report is labelled news, and the content of it appears factual, but MW add an editorial caveat at the start, using “fascist” in their own voice, blurring the news/opinion distinction. This is a reflection on their editorial judgment, that undermines any potential news value in the content they publish from Palestine, and why they should be seen as an opinion blog not a news source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The word "fascist" wasn't actually used in the Mondoweiss article. It was part of an editorial note explaining why the author of that piece wished to remain anonymous.

As for The Observer, they called it a "witch hunt" in their article. Either way, you are talking about someone getting a knock on the door and being fired from their job for criticizing their government on Facebook. Andreas JN466 22:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, MW add an editorial caveat at the start, using “fascist” in their own voice, blurring the news/opinion distinction. This reflects on the editorial quality.

no, The Observer didn’t call it a witch hunt. They quoted somebody calling it a witch-hunt: they reported factually. (And of course the gap between “witch hunt” and “fascist” is huge.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a long established principle here (see WP:BIASED) that the tone of a source and whether it's reliable for facts are two totally separate things. I agree that Mondoweiss is a biased source, but that doesn't mean it's unreliable for facts. That its factual reporting seems to match with that of mainstream sources except that its wording is more stridently anti-Israel seems to exactly confirm my vote above: Option 2 because it's strongly biased but there's no evidence that it's unreliable for facts. Loki (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The tobacco industry and suchlike tried to avoid outright falsehooda too. Have a look at NGO Monitor on Amnesty International [116], Medicis Sans Frontieres [117], the ICJ [118]. Does factual really cover them? NadVolum (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

stricken for being off topic

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

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

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

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

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

• extensive citations in Jerusalem Post[119][120][121][122] and a couple in

Jewish News Syndicate[123][124][125]

• Ha'aretz noting one of its employees was banned from editing Wikipedia in 2013[126]
• a 2014 controversy during which the Washington Post reported that AP had not cited in for several years,[127] after a former AP reporter claimed there was a ban on using it there[128] (but note David Bernstein of Volokh Conspiracy did describe them as a usable source in WaPo in response.[129]
• A 2016 op ed in Al-Jazeera attacking them for bias and misrepresentation[130]
• +972 ridiculing it[131][132]
• rival op eds in a Canadian Jewish outlet[133]
• a 2018 news article in EUObserver that starts "Former Israeli diplomats have accused NGO Monitor, a right-wing pressure group, of sowing misinformation that undermined EU efforts on conflict resolution."
• a 2021 op ed in the NYT that describes "a campaign, spearheaded by the Israeli government (with support from groups like NGO Monitor and UK Lawyers for Israel, which pursue these Palestinian groups in court and have been accused by advocacy groups of disseminating disinformation), targeting civil society organizations that monitor and resist Israeli human rights violations, including the continuing expansion of illegal settlements."[134]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From this list, the Reuters piece uses it as a source for facts (giving its claims similar status to the NGOs it's attacking such as B'Tselem).[135] The BBC and AP examples, however, are all of it (or its spokespeople) being used as a source of opinion, suggesting its opinion is occasionally noteworthy, but not that it is reliable for facts. I can't see the WaPo and NYT examples behind the paywalls, but can I ask what they are using it for, facts or opinion? My take-home is that we might want to include its opinion via RSs, but that we don't have much reason to use it as a reliable source for facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My opinion of NGO monitor is strongly influenced by the way that the organization has manipulated Wikipedia using paid staffers. In particular one staffer who had no qualms about making COI claims against a target of Gerald Steinberg [136] while failing to disclose his own, much worse, COI. [137]. And then, to make it worse, lying about it. He utilized an elaborate strategy to pad WP articles with NGO monitor talking points.(clearly described by Nomoskedasticity in “additional comments” [138]). It was disgusting. I can’t think why anyone would consider an organization who would stoop this kind of underhand behaviour a reliable source. “A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”? No, we have direct evidence of exactly the opposite. Slp1 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the reliability of NGO Monitor?

What is the reliability of NGO Monitor?

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

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

Survey (NGO Monitor)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OAS Panel of Independent International Experts

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

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

• Comment More context on the dispute can be seen here: Talk:Guarimba#Tags. The panel was made up of three experts: Santiago Cantón, Irwin Cotler and Manuel Ventura Robles. WMrapids has argued that since Irwin Cotler was a lawyer for opposition leader Leopoldo López, the source might have a conflict of interest and not have due weight. Cotler was also Nelson Mandela's lawyer in the 80s and a Canadian MP. The disputed content can be found at this diff: [139]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@P-Makoto: Absolutely. Back in the day it was a big headline because it was seen as a precedent for the current investigation in the International Criminal Court (ICC): ([140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150]), and it was the first time that the OAS did something similar. Former ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo was involved with the audiences, and after published the report has been cited by both the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela[151] and the ICC.[152] Just a few months ago, the ICC approved the Panel to submit an amicus curiae to the Court.[153][154][155]

The Venezuelan government expectedly condemned the report, calling it a "grotesque media farce",[156] and Max Blumenthal from The Grayzone questioned why situations like the one in Israel weren't investigated.[157] Incidentally, Blumenthal also questioned Cotler for being a lawyer for Leopoldo López. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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

RfC: Red Ventures

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

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

This proposal came up at a recent discussion of ZDNet [158]. While Red Ventures itself has been infrequently discussed [159] prior to this RfC, sites now owned by it have been frequently discussed in the past, such as CNET, ZDNet, Healthline, and others. For the purposes of keeping this RfC clear due to Red Ventures' enormous reach, this applies to content published by sites during the period of time they were owned by Red Ventures, so pre-acquisition content would be exempt. This RfC also excludes the following sources as they were previously discussed at WP:RSP:

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

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

Survey (Red Ventures)

• Option 3. Publications acquired by Red Ventures have come to WP:RSN and have usually been declared as generally unreliable or below. WP:CNET was declared unreliable in 2022 after Red Ventures began filling with AI-generated content, WP:HEALTHLINE was deprecated as being frequently filled with misinformation, and The Points Guy is blacklisted due to abuse. JPxG observed in this thread that ZDNet currently has an article up on "the best Linux desktops" [160] [161] that has notes from the editor still in the article. In addition, the editor did not identify multiple factual inaccuracies and the article is apparently republished every year with the same URL. [162] ZDNet also publishes articles from StackCommerce about great deals on StackCommerce's website, which are not declared as sponsored content. [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] Other articles are declared as paid content though,[169] which leads me to believe ZDNet is intentionally failing to declare StackCommerce ads as paid content.

This appears to be Red Ventures' modus operandi. They acquire sites with good search engine optimization (SEO) scores, then cut costs by using AI to generate a bunch of content for affiliate marketing on the site. Futurism has identified that Red Ventures uses this strategy across many of their properties such as Bankrate. [170] [171] The Verge also has a good explainer on their editorial process,[172] and adds that Red Ventures pressures journalists at CNet to give better reviews.[173] We shouldn't repeatedly put the onus on editors to prove that Red Ventures ruined a site before we can start removing it; they can easily buy or start another. I think we should look at the common denominator here, which is Red Ventures, and target the problem (a spam network) at its source.

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

Red Ventures' official policy going forward is also to avoid disclosing AI-generated content.[174] According to the Director of SEO at the company: "Disclosing AI content is like telling the IRS you have a cash-only business," so we can't trust them to disambiguate AI-generated content from non AI-generated content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

  @JPxG: It's not just one writer/editor. Lonely Planet also uses AI (their system is called Trill) to generate content for affiliate marketing. [175] [176] Specifically, the system takes images from influencers and generates "bookable content", which Lonely Planet then gets a commission off of. This is very similar to what CNET and The Points Guy do. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  I should add (I found this while doing more research) that the New York Times did an expose on the AI-generated travel guide industry in August last year. [177] They ran guidebooks through an AI detector and found that the Lonely Planet guides had "next to no chance that they were written by A.I. generators." So, they don't seem to be generating their guidebooks with AI, but they do generate some kind of content with AI. It should also be noticed that according to messages leaked by Futurism, Red Ventures' subsidiaries are encouraged not to disclose AI-generated content. [178] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  The problem with this is that the parent company pushes the same editorial policy across the entire organization. It's a network of spammy websites and by the time we designate one they already have another. If we ban BestColleges.com [179] Red Ventures can simply start Thebestschools.org. [180] Or they can just switch to OnlineMBA.com [181] or Nursejournal.org. [182] All of these sites have similar content creation policies (generate SEO-optimized content with AI for affiliate marketing) and they all have the same reliability issues because of it according to Futurism.[183] If we have to have a discussion for every site Red Ventures owns, we'll die a death by a thousand cuts, because they have dozens of sites like those four just in the education sector alone. The content is made by most of the same people and has most of the same problems as they're all owned by the same company that does the same things. We should treat them the same as we do other spam networks that show up to RSN. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion (Red Ventures)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First off, I haven't !voted for deprecation for the reasons that you and others have gave. Blanket-banning isn't the right move here. Going by the rule of WP:GUNREL, the standard is Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Saying "most cases" gives us the ability to postpone where to draw the line in the grey area later. Much of your argument is that "deprecation is bad" but that's not what most people have called for at this discussion.

While I can see your point that this isn't analogous to Dotdash, I still believe that this is very similar to RT or the Epoch Times. As you said, the problem is with those outlets that have obvious direct editorial control over their subsidiaries and their lack of independence from the parent group. This is the same situation as Red Ventures; except Red Ventures is managing things at a higher level. Go read the article from Futurism about their policies: [184] They have the same guy (Lance Davis) that is the Vice President of Content for Financial Services for for CNET as well as its sister sites Bankrate and CreditCards.com. According to Red Ventures themselves, "He is responsible for overseeing and reviewing editorial content and is a member of the newsroom," And the editor in charge of their AI-generated content (Cameron Hurta) is the same person for all Red Ventures properties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly

Are these sources sufficient on their own to establish notability? see Counterparts (novel) and Acrobat (novel) Elinruby (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Why "on their own"? Both articles cite other reviews as well. Schazjmd (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll also point out that this noticeboard is for asking about the reliability of sources in context. If there are concerns about notability, that seems like a separate question. I will say that Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly are two of the best-known, best-reputed, and most reliable book review magazines around, heeded and regarded by libraries, booksellers, and book-buyers. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

As the editor is considering taking the article creator to ANI, it may be that the question is targeted at these articles in their original states, one of which used only those two sources, perhaps as part of building a complaint against said editor. The sources listed are certainly reliable for their own reviews, which addresses any matter for this board; notability is more of an AFD question, and even there the answer would be probably but even if not, irrelevant, as (as Schazjmd points out) neither article depends solely on those sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for helpful background, @NatGertler. The same question basically was recently asked on the talk for WP:NBOOK. Even that casual conversation shows that editors have different views on using only Kirkus/PW, so it's certainly not compelling evidence of anything for an ANI report. Schazjmd (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd say they both count towards WP:N, but per definition they're not enough on their own. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Last I looked this is not ANI, and if i did take Dream Focus there it would be a CIR for their hostile reaction to getting a contentious topics notification, and WP:IDHT about what it is.

Not for using Kirkus, for crying out loud. I did say I was thinking about it and I still am. After 17 years you should know the rules, or at least ask without going ballistic. Now that we have that out of the way, these articles. One of them has 12 reviews on Amazon. I am not certain that Acrobat was actually printed; it hadn't when the film rights were sold. I think these articles are puff pieces, sure.

But the actual question, getting back to a discussion of content rather than what certain editors might want to claim my motives might be, is whether Kirkus et al are enough for notability. I get that they are reliable for their own reviews Elinruby (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

PS @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: thank you that is about what I was thinking

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, your "actual question" is not one for this noticeboard. Your musings about whether a book was printed are irrelevant (a work need not have been released to be notable, and we do have articles on unreleased works) and inaccurate (as some basic research will show.) You seem to be wasting people's time in trying to discredit certain articles. May I suggest that you move on from that topic? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NBOOK#1 explicitly mentions reviews as sources which count towards notability. My understanding is that Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly are both reputable sources, so I would expect that at AfD editors would count them as evidence of notability. Of course the only way to know how an article would do at AfD for sure would be to nominate it for deletion. (Getting increasingly far from the question of reliable sourcing which this board is really intended for, proposing a merge is always an option if you think that a stand-alone page should not exist but a deletion request would not succeed.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks. That wasn't what I asked, but it's useful information Elinruby (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

What you asked is mainly a notability-related issue surrounding interpretations of significant coverage and not necessarily a reliability issue, so there's probably better venues than RSN (which deals with reliability of sources in context). Kirkus is clearly stated to be RS per RSP, except for Kirkus Indie reviews (which are paid reviews that are neither independent nor reliable). Likewise, Publishers Weekly is a longstanding review outlet that discloses much of its policies and guidelines for reviews and submissions, and I would consider that as reliable.

The main area of disagreement IMO is whether Kirkus and PW reviews should fully count as "significant coverage" or constitute a full-length review per NBOOK#1. Many editors would consider Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly SIGCOV based upon a benchmark of around 100-words or 1 long paragraph. But other editors have higher bars for SIGCOV and would argue that Kirkus and PW reviews are essentially capsule reviews that are usually much shorter than a full-length review from a newspaper or online literary site. Accordingly, they would argue that Kirkus and PW reviews wouldn't count or only partially count towards notability. My personal experience would be that if you just have a Kirkus and Publishers Weekly as sources, then the article might survive an AfD most of the times (it will probably be kept or get a NC, but again it depends on who weighs in). For the articles you raised, however, they appear to have been edited already to include more reviews. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd say no, because so many of the reviews are paid. Deb (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

International Truth and Justice Project

Can the International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP) be considered a reliable source, in topics related to the Sri Lankan Civil War? Cossde (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

They're headed[185] by Yasmin Sooka a leading human rights lawyer; previously of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and Frances Harrison; previously of the BBC, Amnesty International and OHCHR. There certainly look reliable, but reliability is about context is there a specific report that is used to source some specific content that this question relates to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree, it's a reliable source for matters related to human rights. Yasmin Sooka's expertise is in the field of human rights. A discussion has been opened up in the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project page which deals with vetting these sources: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources#International Truth and Justice Project, Sri Lanka Oz346 (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Some concerns I have regarding ITJP are:

• Does ITJP meet WP:RS requirements?
  • Yasmin Sooka, was a member of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka which presents a conflict of interests given the role of the ITJP. Hence Sooka's role in the ITJP can not be taken as the singular reason to cite ITJP as a RS. Does it meet WP:INDEPENDENT? At best ITJP represents a WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Hence can it be used to uses as the sole source to maintain WP:NPOV of an article?
  • ITJP data appears to be highly WP:PRIMARY and has not been verified or confirmed through peer-review.
  • Other RS such as mainstream media and organizations have quoted ITJP in limited forms as with the case with any sources of information, falling short of explicitly citing ITJP as a RS.

Cossde (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Let me be clear, I am not questioning Sooka's qualifications, I am sure that it has been verified by the UN Secretary-General. However, given the nature of the work her ITJP does in both data collection and litigation; I quote the following from an ITJP press release:

" The International Truth and Justice Project which she heads has focused on the collection and preservation of evidence pertaining to the final phase of Sri Lanka’s civil war in 2008-9 and post-war torture and sexual violence. It holds one of the most important archives of Sri Lankan testimony covering the last decade (400 case files) meticulously assembled by international human rights investigators, prosecutors and barristers who specialise in sexual violence documentation who have worked in international tribunals and courts. In 2017 the ITJP brought a series of universal jurisdiction cases in Latin America against a Sri Lankan General who was Ambassador there, Jagath Jayasuriya. In 2019 the ITJP assisted eleven torture victims to file a case against Gotabaya Rajapaksa in California under the Torture Victims Protection Act. In 2022, it sent a criminal complaint against Mr Rajapaksa to the Attorney General of Singapore after he fled there briefly, escaping anti-government protests in Sri Lanka calling for his removal as President."

In a similar discussion in this forum the WP:PRIMARY nature of the content and that these have been used by ITJP to execute "universal jurisdiction cases". The use of WP:SECONDARY that have cited ITJP, in my opinion fall under the accepted norms of Wikipedia. Cossde (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Although this and the previous discussion would both fall under PRIMARY they are not the same. Citing court records is quite different to using the reports of a human rights organisation. That they were used as evidence in a court case, isn't the same as being a court document. The reports from ITJP should be handle with the care outlined by WP:PRIMARY, but that doesn't make them unreliable.
I don't see how being a member of tue Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka is in any way a conflict of interest, instead it just shows her qualifications in the area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested, on the contrary, the Panel of Experts were appointed for their independency and unbiased expert advice to the Secretary-General. Since her role in this panel, she has taken on a more direct engagement related to Sri Lanka by forming the human rights group ITJP that only focus is the Sri Lankan Civil War as oppose to other human rights organisations that operate on a broader scope and have collaborate with Tamil lobby groups such as the Global Tamil Forum. Therefore, I agree that reports from ITJP should be handled with care, given the highly sensitive nature of the topics these are used and per WP:PRIMARY, these should be used when cited or interpreted by a reliable secondary source. Cossde (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

So her role as part of the panel caused her to focus more of something she was deeply involved in, that's not a bad thing. Guilt by association with another group is also a weak argument. I see absolutely no reason they can't be used as a primary source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

User @Cossde has a pattern of disputing the reliability of reports published by established human rights groups, including the reputable UN, when they are cited to highlight the human rights abuses by the Sri Lankan armed forces or the government. This latest attempt at impugning the reputation of Yasmin Sooka by associating her with Tamil lobbying is the same tactic used by the Sri Lankan government but fortunately for her the UK High Court has upheld her reputation against such slander. This to me looks like motivated by Nationalist editing.

As for ITJP only focusing on the Sri Lankan Civil War, actually majority of its reports are about the post-war human rights abuses in the country. The UTHR was similar such organization that operated during the war but unlike ITJP it was led by a handful of local volunteers who by their own admission had no training in journalism nor human rights. Despite that, UTHR has been universally regarded as a reliable source and is used frequently on Wikipedia.

Therefore, I too would regard ITJP as a reliable source as every other party to this discussion both here and elsewhere has done. --- Petextrodon (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested, I disagree with you on Sooka's role, however I mentioned before in this thread that I don't her qualifications and that I agree on that ITJP primary source and should be treated with the care outlined by WP:PRIMARY. That said I need to highlight this type of personal attacks by Petextrodon and another anti-SL Government editors who has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks against me [186] and refused to engaged in public discussion when sources they have cited are called out, instead have resorted to personal attacks [187], NPOV rhetoric [188] and stone walling [189], [190], [191] thus making me to take these topics to forums such as these. Cossde (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry RSN is only for the discussion of the reliability of sources, and their behaviour doesn't affect how a reliable a source is. If you have problems with other editors WP:Dispute resolution explains how to deal with the situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• As with other advocacy groups… caution is needed. Statements by advocacy groups are WP:PRIMARY sources… certainly reliable for verifying that they take a given stance on an issue, but not necessarily de-facto reliable for the accuracy of the background material used to take that stance. For anything even remotely controversial, We should present their stance with in text attribution - as opinion and not as accepted fact. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I can agree with this.Cossde (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Studocu

https://www.studocu.com itself claims the contents is contributed by the students, the documents are usually labeled according to the institutions and courses, the institutions has no authority over the contents upload by the users, WP:USERGENERATED. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Random students study notes don't seem like a reliable source, and if it's not UGC it's very UGC adjacent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Not reliable. Deb (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Tasnim News Agency - revisiting its reliability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous discussions: 1, 2.

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

• Option 4. Pseudoscience. We don't cite that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Dr. Mensur Omerbashich)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Christian Parent Reviews a valid source?

Considering that they literally say "we rely on Jesus, not common sense", they don't seem like a very reliable source. Goldside852 (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

That's certainly not a good start, but do you have any more specific examples, or the context this source would be used in? The Kip 19:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure. Maybe for a section about a book or movie's ratings, one could include their review, but would it really be valid if it's based off of what "Jesus" says? Goldside852 (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're not sure in what circumstance this source would be used (and is it being used at all?), I don't think any particular decision is needed at this time. As the top of this page states, this noticeboard is primarily for asking about sources' reliability in context—in the context of particular pages, in the context of particular statements. If this source isn't being cited somewhere, then there's not really any context for making an assessment of how it's being used. In any case, what determines whether a source is or isn't reliable is not its religious or irreligious affiliation, but whether it meets the guidelines of WP:RS: Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited, the context of the fact and cite in the article, incentives of the source to be reliable, the general tone of credibility of the source for the specific fact, etc. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Outside of WP:ABOUTSELF I don't see how they would be usable... They don't have a positive reputation for fact checking and accuracy nor are they widely respected in their field. They also don't have any incentive to be reliable if they're relying on a higher power (which are famously unreliable). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with P-Makoto. There is none of the required context in this request needed to evaluate reliability, and the discussion thus for consists of idle pot-shots based on its affiliation, which are of no value. I could perhaps see it used with attribution to represent its point of view, but that really depends on the context. As it stands, this discussion is moot: WP:RSN is WP:NOTFORUM. GretLomborg (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this book reliable or self-published?

At the John James Cunningham article, there are currently 19 citations to this book (Google Books link) being used to support what looks like more than half of the article's content. I was unable to find any information online that vouches for the credibility of either the author (Alice Putnam Erskine) or the publisher (Anava Designs). Is this book reliable or self-published? Left guide (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like Alice Putnam Erskine may be this person, whom the Oakland Tribune describes as having been an art historian who was a curator for the Mills College Art Gallery and California Historical Society and a dean at the San Francisco Art Institute. To know that she at least was a trained expert in the field of art history is encouraging. If it did turn out that Anava Designs is a self-publishing service, would this be a case of a self-published expert? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

P-Makoto, can you provide a link to the Oakland Tribune material you speak of for others to review? On its own, the obituary you cited above probably isn't worth much in establishing an author's credibility. Left guide (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The obituary was published in the Oakland Tribune; it says so on the page: Published by Oakland Tribune on Dec. 24, 2006. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, sorry I didn't catch that at first. I initially thought the reliability of that obituary was tied to that of legacy.com. Left guide (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is a direct clipping from the Tribune. Having done that, an obituary like this is likely written by the family and is not an indicator of the subject's notability, nor is it in itself "reliable" per Wikipedia terms (but we're not using it for what we call for reliability on.) The only other mention of her that the newspapers.com search brought up was the mention of the selling of her historic house. Worldcat does not find the book in any libraries based on an ISBN search. Amazon does not have it for sale nor has it ever, based on an author search. BookFinder finds no copies for sale in the used market, and a Google search does not pop up anything that would not come from a basic ISBN listing. Searches find no other books by Anava Designs. All in all, there is not only no good sign of WP:RS for this book, there is a strong question whether it meets our verifiability requirement; if no copies of this book can be found, how can one verify its content? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't find anything on Avana designs, and their website is dead and was never archived. WP:SPS requires that experts have been previously published by reliable sources, something that should be true for Erskine given her career but finding anything has proofed harder. It appears she wrote 'Joseph Lee. Painter', Antiques, vol.95, no.6, June 1969, but that's all the details I can find about the article. It's likely there are other works, but because they are obscure and in print media from before the internet age it may be impossible to find them.
So the book is probably generally reliable unless specific issues are raised, the subject was a friend of the author so matters of tone could be an issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested, since the subject was a friend of the author, does that mean it's considered a WP:COISOURCE? Left guide (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Possibly but they also appear to be an expert in the area. So it's a bit of on and the other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

For details of the subject it's probably reliable, but I'd be careful with anything that seems overly serving of the subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948#RfC on what result is to be entered against the result parameter of the infobox

In populating the infobox result parameter, we would use X victory if this was the consensus of sources and this was also reflected by the body of the article. In this case, we have sources that would refer to this as an Indian victory and sources that would refer to this as a stalemate or inconclusive. In such a case, MOS:MIL and the template documentation would instruct us to populate the result parameter with See Aftermath section where the various views in the sources would be discussed. There is no dispute regarding the guidance.

An assertion is being made that all sources listed in the article reporting a result that is a stalemate/inconclusive are passing mentions that fail WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and consequently are to be discounted en masse. I have copied to here, the citations as they appear in the article and also included those supporting an Indian victory for comparison.

While there has been some commentary regarding some of these sources specifically in the pre RfC discussion, there has been no detailed analysis documented that would substantiate that all of these sources are not reliable in that they fail WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

If participants in the RfC feel they must comment, then please indicate that they are involved. For the record, I initiated the RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Question Which (if any) of the sources cited are reliable for asserting that the result of the war was inconclusive or a stalemate?

Sources appearing in article to support that the result was inconclusive or a stalemate

1. Lamb, Alastair (1997). Incomplete Partition: The Genesis of the Kashmir Dispute 1947–1948. Roxford Books. pp. 181, 197. Following their open intervention, of course, the Indian strength on this sector, once established, increased rapidly; but never to such an extent as to threaten to overwhelm the Azad Kashmiri defenders. During the course of 1948 a stalemate was reached which has persisted more or less to the present day. A front line was stabilised which ran south from the Indian controlled Poonch salient, passed just west of Naoshera (which remained in Indian hands), and reached the old Punjab border (now that of Pakistan) a few miles to the west of the Chenab River. The Jammu & Kashmir State town garrisons to the west of this line were unable to hold out against Azad Kashmiri siege, many falling during the course of November 1947. The extreme south of this sector was really an extension of the Punjab plains; and here fighting could take place on a surprisingly large scale, so that in successive Indo-Pakistani Wars this was to be the scene of great clashes of armour and the use of tactical air power, at times of a magnitude which would have aroused notice in World War II
   As 1947 drew to a close, it was already possible to detect a pattern in the Kashmir conflict. The combination of the Azad Kashmiris and the Gilgit Scouts, with varying degrees of assistance both moral and material from Pakistan, had produced the beginnings of a stalemate, and this the cleverer soldiers on both sides appreciated. India now had over 90,000 regular troops in Jammu & Kashmir and yet no quick military solution was in sight. There would, of course, be much fighting in the future. 1948 saw both the epic struggle for Poonch and, later in the year, the Indian victories at the Zoji La and Kargil which achieved control over the Leh-Srinagar road and not only gave India Possession of the Ladakhi capital but also access to the desolate Tibetan borderlands without which the Sino-Indian conflict of the late 1950s would certainly have assumed a rather different form. By the beginning of 1948, however, astute observers could well have concluded that some kind of partition.
2. Kapur, S. Paul (2017). Jihad as Grand Strategy: Islamist Militancy, National Security, and the Pakistani State. Oxford University Press. pp. 49–50. ISBN 978-0-19-976852-3. Despite its inconclusive ending, the first Kashmir war had two major results. First, it demonstrated that nonstate actors could enable Pakistan to challenge India in a manner that limited the prospect of direct military confrontation ... Second, the war enhanced Kashmir's importance to Pakistan, extending the dispute well past the time of partition and transforming it into a contest of national resolve with India.
3. Margolis, Eric (2001). War at the Top of the World: The Struggle for Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Tibet. Routledge. p. 121, 157. ISBN 0-415-92712-9. Meanwhile, in typical tribal fashion, the Pathans delayed their attack on Srinagar and its airfield in order to devote themselves to looting and pillage. This delay allowed India time to mount an air bridge to Srinagar. The Indians used their entire inventory of thirty Dakota military transports to airlift a battalion of Sikhs, blood enemies of the Pathans, to Srinagar's airfield. A three-thousand-man army brigade was rushed up the terrible roads from the plains to Kashmir. After a month of chaotic fighting, the Pathans and Muslim irregular forces were pushed westward by arriving Indian Army troops. Further inconclusive fighting, which was joined in 1948 by regular Pakistani army units, sputtered on until the United Nations imposed a ceasefire in January 1949 between India and Pakistan.
4. Khan, Feroz Hassan; Lavoy, Peter R.; Clary, Christopher (2009). "Pakistan's motivations and calculations for the Kargil conflict". In Lavoy, Peter R. (ed.). Asymmetric Warfare in South Asia: The Causes and Consequences of the Kargil Conflict. Cambridge University Press. p. 71. Kargil was a pivotal battleground during the First Kashmir War. In October 1947, Gilgit Scouts, assisted by Muslim soldiers in the Kashmir state army, mounted a successful coup d'etat in the Northern Areas. The so-called Azad (Free) Forces set up headquarters in the valley town of Astore. The rebels then recruited additional volunteers in the Gilgit and Baltistan regions and moved along the valleys and Indus River while pushing back the Kashmir state army. In February 1948, the "Azad Forces" besieged the garrison in Skardu where non-Muslim civilian and military personnel had taken refuge. In response Pakistan's motivations and calculations for the Kargil In the end, the fighting proved inconclusive, and Pakistani and Indian forces reached a military stalemate in Kashmir. The negotiated Cease-Fire Line was codified in the Karachi Agreement of 1949
5. Fortna, Virginia Page (2017). Peace Time: Cease-Fire Agreements and the Duribility of Peace. Princeton University Press. pp. 59–61. ISBN 978-0-691-11512-2. The war escalated toward the end of 1948, when Pakistan moved troops up from Lahore to fight in Jammu province, exposing itself to possible attack in the Punjab. However, before the war spread beyond the Kashmir territory, and before a conclusive military outcome was reached on the battlefield, a cease-fire was arranged by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), a five-member body send by the UN to help resolve the conflict.
6. Khan, Saira (2009). Nuclear Weapons and Conflict Transformation: The Case of India-Pakistan. Asian Security Studies series. London and New York: Routledge. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-20389176-6. The first fifteen years of the India-Pakistan conflict witnessed violence of different intensities. Even before institutionalizing their independence, India and Pakistan were locked in a crisis which led to their first war from 1947 to 1949. Pakistan showed no hesitation in starting the war and India reciprocated in kind. Though inconclusive, the war has left a permanent mark on the India-Pakistan conflict.
7. Mohan, Surinder (2022-10-06). Complex Rivalry: The Dynamics of India-Pakistan Conflict. University of Michigan Press. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-472-22063-2. Later, when the outcome of the First Kashmir War did not favor either side, the resulting stalemate led to a puzzling division of Kashmir between the two adversaries.
8. Kennedy, Andrew (2011-12-29). The International Ambitions of Mao and Nehru: National Efficacy Beliefs and the Making of Foreign Policy. Cambridge University Press. p. 194. ISBN 978-1-139-50193-4. Although certain minor operations were possible, India was essentially confronted with a stalemate.
9. Fair, C. Christine (2014). Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War. Oxford University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-19-989270-9. Although the war ended in a stalemate with international intervention, Pakistan may have rightly concluded that the strategy of using irregular fighters succeeded.
10. Gardner, Kyle J. (2021-01-21). The Frontier Complex: Geopolitics and the Making of the India-China Border, 1846–1962. Cambridge University Press. p. 237. ISBN 978-1-108-84059-0. In the stalemate that followed the first Indo-Pakistani War...
11. Alagappa, Muthiah (2008). The Long Shadow: Nuclear Weapons and Security in 21st Century Asia. Stanford University Press. p. 218. ISBN 978-0-8047-6086-7. That effort failed, and the ensuing war in 1947 – 48 ended in a military stalemate.
12. Ganguly, Sumit (2004-03-01). The Kashmir Question: Retrospect and Prospect. Routledge. p. 94. ISBN 978-1-135-75658-1. In January 1948, with a military stalemate at hand, India referred the Kashmir dispute to the UN.
13. Chari, P. R.; Cheema, Pervaiz Iqbal; Cohen, Stephen P. (2009-03-19). Four Crises and a Peace Process: American Engagement in South Asia. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-8157-1386-9. With British officers present in both armies and the international community urging restraint, the conflict ended in a tactical and strategic stalemate.
14. Sprague, Stanley B. (2020-11-12). Pakistan Since Independence: A History, 1947 to Today. McFarland. p. 29. ISBN 978-1-4766-8151-1. A stalemate developed, with neither side able to win an overwhelming victory.
15. Snedden, Christopher (2015). Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris. Oxford University Press. p. 185. ISBN 978-1-84904-342-7. In the south of J&K, the war situation was essentially a stalemate by 1949.
16. Quackenbush, Stephen L. (2014-08-12). International Conflict: Logic and Evidence. SAGE. p. 323. ISBN 978-1-4522-4098-5. The first Kashmir War between India and Pakistan lasted from October 1947 to January 1949 and ended in a stalemate...
17. Ankit, Rakesh (2016-06-17). The Kashmir Conflict: From Empire to the Cold War, 1945–66. Routledge. p. 63. ISBN 978-1-317-22525-6. The outcome was a stalemate in which India's democratic desires and Pakistan's security aims were stymied on the altar of greater concerns
18. Behera, Navnita Chadha (2007-05-01). Demystifying Kashmir. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 76. ISBN 978-0-8157-0859-9. The 1947 war ended in a military stalemate
19. Ray, Jayanta Kumar (2007). Aspects of India's International Relations, 1700 to 2000: South Asia and the World. Pearson Education India. p. 208. ISBN 978-81-317-0834-7. With the onset of winter and the consequent problems of maintaining the supply lines, the military situation reached a stalemate.
20. Duschinski, Haley; Bhan, Mona; Zia, Ather (2018), "Introduction "Rebels of the Streets": Violence, Protest, and Freedom in Kashmir", in Duschinski, Haley; Bhan, Mona; Zia, Ather; Mahmood, Cynthia (eds.), Resisting Occupation in Kashmir, Pennsylvania University Press, p. 2, ISBN 978-0-8122-4978-1, Since India's independence from British colonial rule and the subsequent partition in 1947, India and Pakistan, both of which claim sovereign control over the region, have found four inconclusive wars over Kashmir.

Sources appearing in the article to support that the result was an Indian victory

1. Ali, A. (2021). Pakistan's National Security Approach and Post-Cold War Security: Uneasy Co-existence. Routledge Studies in South Asian Politics. Taylor & Francis. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-000-37239-7. Retrieved 2023-12-22. In the first Kashmir war, India occupied two-thirds of the disputed territory and Pakistan was clearly defeated during its first war with India.
2. Wilcox, Wayne Ayres (1963). Pakistan: The Consolidation of a Nation. Columbia University Press. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-231-02589-8. The war for states had not only ended in Indian military victory but had given its leaders enormous self-confidence and satisfaction over a job well done.
3. New Zealand Defence Quarterly, Issues 24–29. New Zealand. Ministry of Defence. 1999. India won, and gained two-thirds of Kashmir, which it successfully held against another Pakistani invasion in 1965.
4. Brozek, Jason (2008). War bellies: the critical relationship between resolve and domestic audiences. University of Wisconsin—Madison. p. 142. ISBN 978-1-109-04475-1. the 1947 First Kashmir (won by India, according to MIDS classification)
5. Hoontrakul, Pongsak (2014). The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics (illustrated ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-137-41235-5. Victor: India, Defeated: Pakistan
6. David H. Kaplan, Guntram H. Herb (2008). Nations and Nationalism [4 volumes]: A Global Historical Overview [4 volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 1235. ISBN 978-1-85109-908-5. Pakistan lost all three wars, which is a major source of humiliation for Pakistanis. The first war (1947-1948) was fought over Kashmir, a predominately Muslim region that remained in India when India was portioned into two states. The war failed to secure Pakistan's sovereignty over the region as it left the majority of it under India.
7. Hughes, G. (2012). My Enemy's Enemy: Proxy Warfare in International Politics. Liverpool University Press. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-83764-186-4. Retrieved 2023-12-22. Pakistan has fought and lost four wars with India (1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999)
8. Brower, D.R. (1988). The World in the Twentieth Century: The Age of Global War and Revolution. Prentice-Hall. p. 257. ISBN 978-0-13-965526-5. That war represented a defeat for Pakistan. Hoping to conquer Kashmir, the Pakistani leaders had sent their best troops into battle against the Indian army. Military victory proved beyond the means of the smaller state, though it was by the mid - 1960s a militaristic regime.
9. Ahmed, T. (2020). Literature and Politics in the Age of Nationalism: The Progressive Episode in South Asia, 1932-56. Taylor & Francis. p. 128. ISBN 978-1-000-08394-1. based on the disaffection of a layer of army officers reeling from their defeat in Kashmir.
10. Shaikh, Farzana (2018). Making Sense of Pakistan. Oxford University Press. p. 231. ISBN 978-0-19-006206-4. Though swiftly crushed, it pointed to the presence of a simmering debate in the army unleashed by Pakistan's military defeat in Kashmir.

Comments

• I can't see anything immediately wrong with any of these sources, either for stalemate or Indian victory. Generally pointing to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS won't do, someone opposed to the sources will need to make arguments against each source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Notified at WP:NPOVN. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Broadjam

What's the reliability of BroadJam? ''Flux55'' (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, can you provide more context for this question, as per the heading above? Broadjam seem to be a wide-ranging site for music-related matters. I cannot tell what part of the site you are referring to. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

In the draft Emotep (now deleted), the user who created it used Broadjam for info about the band that was the subject of the draft. I'm asking if BroadJam can be used for those purposes. ''Flux55'' (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Bristol Live

I left a message at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 February 5 regarding a copyright issue at Ian Lavender but as it seems to be an issue with Bristol Live instead of the Wikipedia article I should have posted it here instead. A paragraph at https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/dads-army-star-ian-lavender-9078725 published today is identical to one in the article dating from at least 2013. The publication has editorial oversight but it seems that the article lifted information straight from the article so a discussion over how reliable the publication is and other's related to its parent company Reach PLC would be helpful. Suonii180 (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately lots of other websites (not to mention books) lift content from Wikipedia. That's allowed, and it becomes a real issue only when that information is used to back up "facts" in Wikipedia. Deb (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Facts are not copyrightable but structure and wording can be. Attribution is needed to reuse content from Wikipedia; as Wikipedia is not a reliable source, any source that uses it as the basis of information is tainted by association. "Citogenesis" is the name for an article using a source that (surreptitiously) is based on a previous version of the article. — Bilorv (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Qmunicate (magazine)

See 'about us' at https://qmunicatemagazine.com/about-us/ . I am thinking this is more of a blog than a news site. Thoughts from those with more wisdom and experience in these matters? Thanks. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere in the "About Us" or "Contact Us" sections are we given any idea who they are, what their ownership or affiliation is, or why we should heed them. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Nothing at all to suggest reliability. At best, it's a primary source for information about itself. Deb (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

www.onthisday.com

I'm being told by newish contributors that this is a reliable source simply because it isn't on the list of unreliable sources. It seems obvious to me that it's a mirror site, and I feel sure it has been discussed before but it doesn't appear in the archive (or in the List of mirrors and forks). Can anyone point me to a previous discussion? If not, what do people think? Deb (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking though their about page, it seems that some editors have a background in history, but I don't see how its better to cite this source than when more reliable non-pop history websites exist. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Pretty obvious that onthisday.com is a WP:MIRROR. Amazing it isn't on WP:RSP already. Certainly nowhere near reliable enough for any type of personal info like WP:DOBs where the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source (if that site was a reliable source). Toddst1 (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, Even the editor who you reference above acknowledges it's unreliable: " it's not always 100% accurate". Continuing to use it, knowing it's unreliable, is indeed problematic. Toddst1 (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

a question on the history of Dubrovnik

I'd appreciate some input on Talk:Serb-Catholic movement in Dubrovnik#Harris v. V. A. Fine, we have a reasonably complex issue of how to juxtapose citations to books from two modern-day historians, both of which have some documented criticism leveled against them in the respective articles. --Joy (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources for people in the Book of Mormon

Are publications from Herald House, the Maxwell Institute, and Deseret Book a primary source for people in the Book of Mormon?

Ongoing discussion on the talk page for King Noah has not been able to come to a consensus about if sources published by Herald House, the Maxwell Institute, and Deseret Book are primary sources for pages about people in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is sacred writ for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and other church in the Latter Day Saint movement, including the Church of Christ. I know this isn't the primary sources noticeboard, but I believe that some of the concerns about primary sources overlap with reliability in this case. Herald House is the publishing house for the Church of Christ. The Maxwell Institute is sponsored by Brigham Young University, which is owned by the LDS Church. Deseret Book is owned by the LDS Church. I believe that books published by these publishers/institutes are secondary sources and should be attributed in-text for interpretive information, but not for summary of Book of Mormon narrative. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to RSN. To better summarize (from the talk page) "The question is whether or not the Church is a primary source when it comes to describing its own texts, doctrines, and traditions." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Big Money Threepwood, Left guide, and Jfire: who participated in the talk page discussion (P-Makoto did as well but has already been pinged below). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The only thing that is truly a primary source for people in the Book of Mormon is the Book of Mormon itself. In this context, the sources in question are neither primary nor independent; they are secondary but they fall under the purview of WP:COISOURCE, so they likely don't count towards notability. Limited uses with in-text attribution would be reasonable, ideally being contextualized against fully independent perspectives. Left guide (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

In a thread with a similar theme at the WikiProject Christianity noticeboard, @Pbritti: expressed that Wikipedia relies on similar sources for its coverage of Catholicism, Hinduism, and many other major world religions, so as a courtesy I have pinged Pbritti, out of the sense that this conversation could have implications for what are considered secondary and reliable sources for religious text topics beyond Book of Mormon studies and these particular presses.

Although not policy, the popular essay WP:IS describes primary sources as original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. This is a conventional and reasonable definition that also matches the understanding taught in the humanities. Primary sources for King Noah would be sources close to the "event" of King Noah and written by people directly involved. Since King Noah is known via being a figure in the Book of Mormon, primary sources would be the Book of Mormon and manuscript materials from its production.

I also disagree with the suggestion that sources from a publisher like the Maxwell Institute should always and necessarily be considered WP:COISOURCE. The Maxwell Institute as a publisher does have a conflict of interest with itself and with BYU, but the connections to the Book of Mormon are cultural and religious, not institutional or financial (King Noah doesn't bankroll the Maxwell Institute, and he of course is completely unable to). As a publisher for Book of Mormon studies, the Maxwell Institute seems comparable to publishers in biblical studies like Yeshiva University Press and Baylor University Press: they're all academic institutions that are part of religious traditions/institutions, and they might have biases about these topics, but bias is not the same as COI. (In other words, I consider Baylor University Press not independent for the Baptist General Convention of Texas but think it is independent for the Bible or Paul the Apostle.) [edit: Struck part of the sentence I had a further think about and am not so sure of. However, it does seem sensible to say Baylor University Press has a COI with Baylor University. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)]

I also think the characterization of all these institutions as a monolithic "the Church" (even when Herald House is affiliated with an entirely different denomination than the Maxwell Institute) risks being misleading. There is a clear difference between the Maxwell Institute's academically informed output (written by scholars with advanced degrees and training) compared to, say, a Sunday School manual literally published by the denomination (like the Come, Follow Me manuals). Maxwell Institute books say on the inside: not made, provided, approved, or endorsed by Intellectual Reserve Inc. or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy ping, P-Makoto! The next couple days are busy for me, so I'm going to regrettably miss this important discussion. I reiterate my original sentiments but don't offer any additional support for my position, for what it's worth. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Brant Gardner's Book of Mormon commentary a RS for BoM people pages?

Brant Gardner's commentary on the Book of Mormon is the source for the first paragraph about perceptions of Lamanites. Garder's interpretation of Zeniff's words are attributed in-text. It is published by Kofford Books, a publisher independent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and other churches within the Latter Day Saint movement. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page for Zeniff about if Brant Gardner is a reliable source for interpretation of Book of Mormon people. HEB argues that he is "not respected or mainstream scholarship". I argue that his work was foundational to Book of Mormon Studies. P-Makoto provides several secondary sources from within Mormon studies that judge Gardner's work favorably. FyzixFighter writes that this use by other scholars is sufficient to establish his commentary as reliable. HEB says that this does not establish reliability. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to Brant Gardner I see an amateur (whose day job is software consulting and product management, not academics) who has been published within a walled garden of apologetics. Publishing in Mormon Studies Review (pre-2018), FAIR (Mormon apologetics organization), and Kofford Books (a minor LDS religious publisher, presumably related to V. Lewis Kofford) doesn't make you a published expert as we understand them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @FyzixFighter and P-Makoto:. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I really don't see how this would be a big problem: even if we're dealing with a minor scholar and a minor publisher, we're talking about an in-house interpretation about an in-house matter, so to speak, properly attributed. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that much of it is pseudoscience, someone whose academic background (a BA from BYU and a MA from University at Albany, SUNY) is in Mesoamerican studies isn't a Book of Mormon expert unless you subscribe to a particular brand of Mormon literalism which believes that the Lamanites were literally American Indians and that much of the Book of Mormon takes place in Mesoamerica (see Archaeology and the Book of Mormon and Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting for more). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Brant's wiki page draws heavily from a bio of him on the church website. This is equivalent to saying a preacher is an expert in the hostoricity of the old testament. Maybe, but maybe not. If you think Native Americans spoke Egyptian, you aren't much of an expert in matters of nonfiction. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

A Baptist preacher (just to give an example) might not be an expert in the historicity of the Old Testament (unless they are, hypothetically, simultaneously a published and respected expert on that subject) but could very plausibly be an expert in the Christian Bible's theological, interpretive, and literary qualities, uses, meanings, etc. Though I admit I find the comparison to a preacher a little forced; the OP isn't asking about citing a sermon. Second Witness is a commentary published by a denominationally unaffiliated and independent press.

By way of aside, no one in the thread has made claims about speaking Egyptian, nor do such claims appear on either the Zeniff or King Noah pages. I'm genuinely a little confused; what's that comment supposed to be about? Is that supposed to be an accusation or claim about the OP, via riffing on elements of the Book of Mormon setting? I'd invite us all to careful to WP:AVOIDYOU. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The person you said is an expert is an amateur psuedoarcheologist. He is used as a source on the King Noah page, which is where this discussion came from. The person you claim to be an expert is someone who believes that Native Americans spoke Egyptian. This author makes a lot of other pseudoscientific claims, and is clearly not trustworthy when it comes to matters of fact. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd point out that The person [I] said is an expert was a spin off the preacher example you gave; the "expert" I spoke of is a hypothetical Baptist preacher that doesn't exist; he's certainly not cited on the Zeniff or King Noah pages.

If you're talking about Brant Gardner, I don't know what he believes about Native American language. I haven't cited him or Second Witness for the subject of Native American languages (why would I?) and I care much less about a privately held belief and much more about a published source and what it's used for. The Evangelical historian Mark Noll believes in the virginal conception and birth of Jesus Christ, but the unsuitability of miraculous virgin birth claims for the parthenogenesis or pregnancy articles doesn't somehow make Noll or his In the Beginning Was the Word: The Bible in American Public Life, 1492-1783 unreliable for pages about the Bible or Christianity. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited.

Second Witness probably isn't a reliable source for Native American linguistics (why would it be? It's not about that topic), and it's good that neither OP nor I are trying to cite it on such pages. That, however, doesn't stop it from being reliable for other facts, like the setting, narrative, etc. contained in the Book of Mormon. In the context of the OP's question and the use on Zeniff and King Noah, Second Witness has been cited as commentary on the Book of Mormon as a literary text with significance in Mormonism and religious studies, and in that context it's a reliable source.

Being direct, I worry your criticism as phrased so far is based less on knowledge of or familiarity with the Second Witness book and more on circulating humor about Mormons. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

As one might expect, I agree with FyzixFighter that the favorable WP:USEBYOTHERS I provided on the Zeniff talk page demonstrates the sufficient reliability of Second Witness as a WP:RS source for analysis of the text of the Book of Mormon. So long as other policies like WP:NPOV are also followed in the writing of the page, I think the use is fine.

Next, I have a few comments about some of what's been brought up in this thread. As far as Gardner's degree goes, it's true a degree is informative for what someone is an expert in and something worth regarding and considering, but I would be more careful about the limits one draws. The humanities are interdisciplinary, and interpretive skills can transfer across topics. Someone trained on one topic is capable of going on to produce respected scholarship on a different one. To use another example, the historian Richard Bushman was trained in the sociopolitical history of eighteenth-century America (his PhD was for the history of American civilization, and his first book was From Puritan to Yankee: Character and the Social Order in Connecticut, 1690–1765), yet he later in his career became a respected scholar in Mormon studies and Book of Mormon studies, bringing his analytical training to bear on religious studies and literary studies (such as in his "Nephi's Project: The Gold Plates as Book History"). If we went solely by his degree, we might say Bushman isn't a reliable source for literary studies like Book of Mormon scholarship, but that would be a misunderstanding of Bushman and of the field.

Finally, as for Greg Kofford Books, although Horse Eye's Back calls it a minor LDS publisher, it is quite respected in the field of Mormon studies. Sociologist of religion Armand Mauss wrote that Greg Kofford Books of Salt Lake City (www.koffordbooks.com) also specializes in Mormon Studies (in "The Emergence Of Mormon Studies In The Social Sciences", in American Sociology of Religion, ed. Anthony Blasi, Religion and the Social Order vol. 13 [Brill, 2007], 121–150, here 124). And academic organizations have recognized Greg Kofford Books publications with several awards, including Best Biography (from the John Whitmer Historical Association in 2016 and from the Mormon History Association in 2012), Best Book (from the Mormon History Association in 2015 and from JWHA and MHA in 2011), Best International Book (from MHA in 2013, 2014, and 2015), and Best Religious Nonfiction (from the Association for Mormon Letters in 2014). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Prigozhin vs Dr. Gilbert W. Merkx casualty numbers reliability for the infobox

There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut#Ukrainian losses "per Wagner" where @Alexiscoutinho insists Prigozhin casualty numbers should be kept at the infobox [192] while numbers published in Journal of Advanced Military Studies (usmcu.edu) article Project MUSE - Russia's War in Ukraine: Two Decisive Factors (jhu.edu) are not reliable enough for the infobox [193] .

My point is There are no proofs in this discussion for Prigozhin numbers reliability, and he is unreliable thus has no place in the infobox. He is unreliable per any threshold of reliability and return of his numbers is unwarranted. Balance is about balance among reliable sources and is to be achieved using reliable sources. That has all already been discussed and answered and we are in no need to repeat.

What the opinion would be? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it's very important to really know the context of this discussion since many of my points were already exposed in the original discussion. Besides, the writing of this title seems a bit disingenuous since it mixes up, in an unfair way, two distinct concerns I raised there. Below is a transcript of the original discussion:

Extended content

Prigozhin can be used for assessing Russian losses as he would not say a number which is more than they what lose. Assessment of Ukrainian losses however is different and he is not a reliable source for this figure. It can be left within article body but I'm removing it from the infobox. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Neither side is reliable for statements of fact regarding casualties because ultimately there is no fact around them. Only Ukraine, Russia and Wagner know their own losses and this won't come out until well after the war. Saying one estimate is more reliable than the other when they ultimately can't be seems like cherry picking to me. Furthermore, it makes the infobox imbalanced. Show both sides in a balanced way and with proper atribution, or show none. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Neither side is reliable for statements of fact regarding casualties — User:Alexiscoutinho 15:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC) No, US estimates, BBC estimates, and Journal of Advanced Military Studies article estimates are much more reliable regarding losses, and Prigozhin has no reliability at all. Even Ukraine estimates are more reliable then Russian sources estimates. Saying one estimate is more reliable than the other when they ultimately can't be seems like cherry picking to me — User:Alexiscoutinho 15:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC) No, that's stating facts. Prigozhin estimates have no reliability at all. Furthermore, it makes the infobox imbalanced. Show both sides in a balanced way and with proper atribution, or show none. — User:Alexiscoutinho 15:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC) The balance is achieved among and using reliable sources. We are to not to use unreliable sources to achieve balance. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Still dispute. Wagner's estimate, the main party in the battle, is at least quite relevant. This feels like an abuse of the argument of reliability, maybe a simplistic interpretation of the principle. By the way, this is all WP:AGF, that's why I'm using words like "feels like" and "maybe"... While I agree that an academic source is surely more reliable, I thought it was quite inadequate to keep the "less reliable" estimates only tending towards one side. This ties to your initial comment of: Prigozhin can be used for assessing Russian losses as he would not say a number which is more than they what lose. Assessment of Ukrainian losses however is different and he is not a reliable source for this figure., which I found quite concerning as it seems like a crude and convenient oversimplification. I would really appreciate if other uninvolved editors weighted in on this too. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Still dispute. Wagner's estimate, the main party in the battle, is at least quite relevant. — User:Alexiscoutinho 20:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC) It's called notable, not relevant. That's why we include it into article body, attributed. That doesn't make it reliable. it was quite inadequate to keep the "less reliable" estimates only tending towards one side. This ties to your initial comment of: Prigozhin can be used for assessing Russian losses as he would not say a number which is more than they what lose. Assessment of Ukrainian losses however is different and he is not a reliable source for this figure., which I found quite concerning as it seems like a crude and convenient oversimplification. — User:Alexiscoutinho 20:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Russian-side sources are widely unreliable and this is their problem, not wikipedia's. We are still to not to use fringe sources to achieve a false "balance". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Another thing. The purpose of infoboxes is to summarize and give an overall view of the content of the article. This implies fairly and in a balanced way representing the views of the article. If in the process it makes an unbalanced representation of the content, then it's not fulfilling its purpose and is doing something wrong. It doesn't make sense for only the infobox to have a higher threshold of reliability. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC) Greetings, there are no proofs in this discussion for Prigozhin numbers reliability, and he is unreliable thus has no place in the infobox. He is unreliable per any threshold of reliability and return of his numbers is unwarranted. Balance is about balance among reliable sources and is to be achieved using reliable sources. That has all already been discussed and answered and we are in no need to repeat. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC) There is also no proof that those other estimates are more reliable for statements of fact, they don't refer to confirmed numbers after all. The publishing sources are all generally reliable. However, there is no proof that the figures of each viewpoint/party are really accurate. As such, we give WP:DUE weight to each viewpoint and properly attribute them. I fear that unless more editors participate here or this discussion is moved to WP:RSN, the discussion won't progress. As an alternative, I propose moving all the varying estimates of strength and casualties from the infobox section to the body of the article and keep only a generic word like "Heavy" for each side or just link to the sections, like was done in the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive page. This would be the least controvertial and most impartial solution and would clean up the infobox. We should only keep facts there and information that there is consensus on. What do you think? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Prigozhin vs Dr. Gilbert W. Merkx casualty numbers reliability for the infobox ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC) Dr. Gilbert W. Merkx reliability In fact, I would ask you to demonstrate how that "academic source" you cited is objectively "more reliable" than all the other estimates. I've checked the publication and I really wasn't impressed. Firstly, it's a review piece that talks about the war as a whole, thus talks about a bit of everything. The only part I found that was related to casualties in the battle of Bakhmut was this: In Bakhmut, the most intense of these battles, recent estimates suggest that Russian forces suffered between 32,000 and 43,000 dead and 95,000 wounded, with Ukrainian losses at about 15–20 percent of that. That's it. In a sea of other text, the author only says this. And it doesn't even seem like he made the estimate. It seems like he's drawing from other estimates. Which estimates? Ukrainian estimates? US estimates? It's not clear and maybe we just can't know. The only nearby reference [45] is from a NYT article from the start of the war. So I really don't see much credibility with that statement. At first glance, that "academic ref" just seems like an adornment and, as such, I'll partly comment it out until consensus is gained for its inclusion. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC) The article Project MUSE - Russia's War in Ukraine: Two Decisive Factors (jhu.edu) is published in Journal of Advanced Military Studies (usmcu.edu) and JAMS uses a double anonymous peer review process to evaluate submissions. Subject matter experts who specialize in military history, national security, international relations, social science topics are recruited from internal and external agencies to support JAMS's annual publishing process. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC) This is the author's attribution: Dr. Gilbert W. Merkx is professor emeritus, Department of Sociology, Duke University, where he also served as vice provost for international affairs and director of the Center for International Studies. He has published eight books and 200 articles and chapters, a number of which deal with military and security issues. Looks to me like he knows a bit (or enough) of many things. In fact, his degrees are all in Sociology. I'm not saying he's lying. Those estimates he's referring to are very likely real. But the thing is, it doesn't seem like those are his estimates, so his qualifications are mostly useless to that statement. That is not an article dedicated to battle of Bakhmut, let alone the casualties of it. Therefore, the citation is malformed or at least misrepresented. Furthermore, it doesn't mean very much what JAMS talks about itself. There are plenty of "bad journals" out there that would say good stuff about themselves. Ideally, another source should say how qualified JAMS is, or simply other well respected editors here. But once again, I'm not implying that JAMS is unreliable/lying, I'm willing to believe it is good even without knowing much about it. I aimed mostly to nullify that unsatisfactory argument as a sole response, ie. I wanted you to use a stronger argument to convince me or advance the discussion elsewhere (ie. how to reach a compromise instead of who's right or wrong). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Oh, and another thing I forgot to mention, even if there is indeed a double anonymous peer review process, I wouldn't be surprised if not all statements were fully fact checked. I believe the purpose of the check is to mostly validate the general conclusions and most important statements of the publication. How could the reviewers fact check vague/opaque statements like that? This is not natural sciences... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC) This journal is used more than 150 times " Journal of Advanced Military Studies" site:wikipedia.org - Google Search currently so I'd say there is a consensus regarding its reliability now. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Just note that this isn't my point btw. As a side note though, reliability of a journal doesn't really come from the number of Google search hits, it comes from the amount of citations in other journals. I'm not asking you to provide this info and I get your point of reliability of JAMS. I'm just trying to help you out (make stronger arguments) for maybe future discussions. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC) wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

So, summarizing, there are two concerns:

1. All varying estimates shown in the infobox are published by reliable sources. These can be trusted to be accurately making statements of fact. What are these statements of fact? To faithfully relay the estimates from the original primary source. Now here comes the problem, all of those primary estimates are, well, estimates, they are not confirmed casualties (or confirmed strength) and all have varying degrees of uncertainty. So it seems inadequate to be extending the notion/argument of reliability to those primary sources/estimates aswell. Furthermore, those estimates all come from heavily involved parties: Ukraine, Wagner and USA (which spent a massive amount of money in the war and naturally has its own interests to justify all that past and continued spending). I believe it's too early to be making assertions that one estimate is more reliable than the other (and then trying to hide one estimate and advertise the other) when the correct terminology should actually be "how likely" each one is to be closer to the true number. And the true number is something only Russia and Ukraine know for their own troops; a figure which won't appear until well after the war. I also thought that ManyAreasExpert's argument that Wagner's estimate was unreliable for the infobox, but was acceptable for the article body was quite inadequate. There should be no varying or arbitrary thresholds of reliability in different parts of the article. The infobox should summarize the points/views presented in the article in a balanced way. If, in the process, it skews the balance by filtering out particular views/information, then it's not serving its purpose and is actually being misleading.
2. The other concern is about Dr. Gilbert W. Merkx's citation. While ManyAreasExpert attempted to prove the reliability of the author and journal, I pointed out that his method wasn't ideal. This/here is a better place to reach such conclusions about reliability. But even though I didn't find his proof particularly satisfying, that wasn't my point. I argued that the attribution of his citation in the article was incorrect. ManyAreasExpert wrote the citation implying that Dr. Gilbert W. Merkx made the estimate. But closer inspection of the source showed that this likely wasn't the case. The author, with degrees in Sociology but still knowledgeable in other relevant areas (I showed his full attribution in the original discussion collapsed above), in a review paper that talked about the war as a whole, made a passing mention of recent estimates. This is the quote in the publication: "In Bakhmut, the most intense of these battles, recent estimates suggest that Russian forces suffered between 32,000 and 43,000 dead and 95,000 wounded, with Ukrainian losses at about 15–20 percent of that." That's the only thing the author says in a sea of text. It seems likely that he isn't refering to his estimate (which is good since he doesn't seem to have the ideal qualifications to make one). But then whose estimate is that? American, Ukrainian, German? We don't know and maybe can't. Possibly even the peers who allegedly review JAMS pulications might not have exactly known the source. After all, the publication had a completely different objective/thesis. In light of this, I corrected the citation here and the problem should have been solved. Given that the primary source of the estimate is unknown, one must not attribute it directly to the secondary academic source. Thus I don't fully understand why ManyAreasExpert is bringing this up again. Perhaps to fully clarify the matter...? Which would be understandable.

Damn, this was supposed to be a summary, but ended up being quite long. If something I wrote isn't quite clear, then reading the original discussion will probably be more elucidating. I think the real juice is there.

Oh, and I must not forget that I suggested to move all those quite different estimates from the infobox to the body of the article. There, we can properly give WP:DUE weight to all notable views/estimates in a balanced way. It also clears up the infobox and let's us keep only the facts and uncontrovertial information: that both sides suffered "heavy" losses and that the reader should also check the appropriate section to really understand who said what and by how much they differ. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Infoboxes are in general bad places to try and discribe complex disagreements. I would suggest changing them to "lowest estimate<refs> – highest estimate<refs>" and moving any furthet details into the article content. There who made estimates and any criticism of those estimates can be explained in full. I would also suggest all estimates are attributed as estimates are.. well estimates. Also attribution should be to the source, for instance the current infobox attributes a report by Sky News as "Western estimates" as if Sky News is the mouth piece of of some multi-national conglomerate. It should either be attributed to Sky News or the source that Sky News is quoting (if any). The same issue holds true for several of the other attributions (whether 'western' or not). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Prigozhin numbers are unreliable to be included into infobox no matter if they are attributed or not.

  Sky News cites Western officials and there are other media outlets for the same number so we don't have to be that precise with attribution and just settle on "Western".

  Or, we can use academic article referred above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry to interrupt, but your previous reply gives the impression that you're not looking for advice here. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  I've just re-read the Sky article again just to be sure, and it never mentions Western officials or any other source for it's figures in any way. To be clear I mean this article[194] that is used to say 'Western officials' claim Ukrainian loses are 20,000+ killed or wounded.
  The sources for an estimate by a western official of Russian nukbers we're both just quoting a different Sky article, I've replaced both with the direct Sky News article.[195]
  Prigozhin would be considered reliable for the losses according to the Wagner group, in the way that any group is reliable for their own words. Putting these details in the content on the article allows for any criticism of them to also be added, something the infobox can't handle. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! Ukraine-Russia war latest: Zelenskyy replaces another top army chief; Putin wanted to show he's 'ready for peace talks' in interview | World News | Sky News says More than 60,000 Russian casualties have been reported in Moscow's efforts to capture the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut, according to a Western official and there are other sources [196] [197] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes as I explained that's not the part I'm talking about. I as talking about the source used in the infobox for 20,000+ killed or wounded Ukrainian loses which doesn't mention western sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Prigozhin would be considered reliable for the losses according to the Wagner group, in the way that any group is reliable for their own words. Putting these details in the content on the article allows for any criticism of them to also be added, something the infobox can't handle.
  — User:ActivelyDisinterested 22:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  ... and that means ... ? Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Something like "Yevgeny Prigozhin estimated the Wagner group loses to be ..." If I published an article saying I believed the worlds favourite fruit was the orange, the you could attribute as "ActivelyDisinterested says the worlds favourite fruit is the orange". Prigozhin as the leader of the Wagner group is reliable for statements from the Wagner group. You can't use that to say it's true in wikivoice, but you can use it to say that what he said. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  There is already a paragraph saying this in article body.

  The argument is that why we should have Prigozhin numbers in the infobox. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  If an argument is being made against JAMS as a reliable source it needs to be spelled out better. I wouldn't attribute them as academic sources, as that's a very wide net and just invites {{who?}}, but "an estimate in the Journal of Advanced Military Studies" could work (or an estimate by Gilbert Merkx in the Journal etc..). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  I would admit Merkx's estimates seem high, but they are also appear newer and independent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  newer and independent should we actually assume that? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  That would depend on your argument against Merkx and JAMS reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Just found this in Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Context matters which may be useful: Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  All these policies have "may not" or "should' in them, instead of "will not" and "must". They are guidance and advice rather than scripture.
  However saying that I spent a couple of hours trying to find any collaboration for this estimate. Merkx does say it's someone else's estimate, but doesn't say who and doesn't give a citation (oddly given everything else is properly cited in the article). The only thing I can find coming close is some old leaked estimates from US officials, but they were for the whole conflict at the point not just the battle of Bakhmut. I'm concerned that the numbers are a mistake, even in reliable sources they do happen. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  "an estimate in the Journal of Advanced Military Studies" could work
  — User:ActivelyDisinterested 22:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! Right now it says Fall 2023 research suggests that recent estimates[who?] have Russian losses at 32,000–43,000 dead and 95,000 wounded and Ukrainian losses at 15–20% of the Russian's in the article body. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  You seem to have misunderstood slightly, the "[who?]" part is highlighting a problem. This seems to be an estimate inside another work rather than research dedicated to the specific subject, it shouldn't say who made the estimate rather than "Fall 2023 research". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  "Fall 2023 research" is fine but under what attribution to include it into the infobox? Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  It is not fine, as it is not attribution. It's not even research but Merkx stating someone else's estimate. If it's going to be included, and I'm leaning more than it shouldn't, it should be attributes to Merkx or JAMS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with this attribution as well. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'm going to create two new sections, as this is becoming confusing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  I've notified the WP:MILHIST project to hopefully get some extra input to the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yevgeny Prigozhin and the Wagner group

Is Yevgeny Prigozhin and the Wagner group reliable for estimates of loses suffered by the Wagner group during the battle of Bakhmut? Should Wagner groups estimates of Ukrainian loses be included in the infobox? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Per Cinderella's comment in the section below, I see it as premature to attempt to judge the reliability of estimates from either side when no good quality independent assessments currently exist. The current estimates are all flawed to a varying extent, and as such, should only be explored in the article body. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd be very wary of using such sources in an infobox as by definition unreliable, but might be OK with a clear "per Wagner" attribution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Gilbert W. Merkx and the Journal of Advanced Military Studies

Are the estimates given by Merkx in this article[198] in the Journal of Advanced Military Studies reliable? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The rest of Merkx's article is well cited but the estimates give no citation and I can't find anything to back up the estimates. The exact quote is recent estimates suggest that Russian forces suffered between 32,000 and 43,000 dead and 95,000 wounded, with Ukrainian losses at about 15–20 percent of that. These don't appear to be an Merkx estimate and the only thing close I can find is an estimate for the entire war not just the battle of Bakhmut. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I would actually greet any other academic estimate as well, including, for example, ISW's. Couldn't find another one yet. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I spent some more time looking for estimate, but estimates seem hard to come by. Estimates for Russian figures are all very similar to the figures given by Wagner, while finding anything for Ukrainian figures is proving extremely hard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key points from the article. Placing multiple estimates in the infobox for casualties is intricate detail for which the infobox is unsuited. We do not have casualties in the infobox for Russian invasion of Ukraine, partly because the war is ongoing and partly because there are no good quality independent assessments to draw upon and report in the infobox with confidence. We should note that what is reported in an infobox is often viewed as fact. Even though the fighting for Bakhmut has concluded, one can say that the dust is yet to settle and the circumstances for Bakhmut are not unlike the ongoing war. We lack good quality independent assessments and are unlikely to until the dust has well and truly settled. We are not obliged to populate the infobox casualty section. There is WP:NODEADLINE. In the meantime, we can write in the body of the article, a summary of what has been published about casualties and the TOC will direct our readers to that section if it is their desire to know more about casualties. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Completely agree. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Having spent many hours now looking for estimates and such for the battle specifically I think this is the best option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Toby Keith and Spinning Airwaves

Recently, this country music icon died, and USAToday and NBC claim that his debut single was the most-played-on-the-radio country song of the 1990s. That seems okay at first, but see this analysis by @BigFellow1916. No contemporary sources (and neither BMI nor Billboard (magazine)) can be found that have the fact. Rather, it was added into the article in 2009 and with this 2007 source in 2013, which is from CMT, a TV channel dedicated to country music. The fact doesn't surface until the 2020s, so there is reason to believe that an incident of citogenesis happened. Thoughts? Is there precedent that CMT is a very reliable source? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I found an article calling the song "One of the most played tracks of the 1990s." but this is a 2024 revamp of a 2017 article, so could not have been the source of the original CMT misinformation or the original wikipedia confusion.

https://www.billboard.com/lists/best-toby-keith-songs/i-wanna-talk-about-me-2001/

BigFellow1916 (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

That isn’t contemporary either, so I wouldn’t say that it’s better than the recent NBC or USAToday ones Aaron Liu (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It was literally refreshed today as part of a feature covering his death.

BigFellow1916 (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

By contemporary, I mean contemporary to the 1990s or pretty early 2000s. Sorry for the confusion. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, copy. I see what you're saying I originally thought that but when you compared it to recent ones it through me off.

In my original note I do cite 2 contemporary articles, including the one that was written about the songs '3 million-air' award.

The relevance of the recent article from billboard is that they say "one of the most played" and I would think billboard, of all places, would know if it was in fact "the most played" and would attribute that to the song if true. BigFellow1916 (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Zach Panning/Running Websites

I've just started working on a draft article for Zach Panning and have found extensive sources from two websites that I'm not sure qualify as reliable citable sources. They are https://www.flotrack.org/, and https://citiusmag.com/ I feel strongly that they do qualify - they have staff, function officially within the track world, etc. but I just want to be sure. Wondering what you (all) think. AdmiralAckbar1977 ^{talk contribs} 23:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@AdmiralAckbar1977, "Zach Panning is..." is not really a start. You used ten references for that. Also, the following, "Using draft bc I think this could be an article created without me, therefore sandbox# would not be ideal" could get it deleted if you're not going to put any effort into working on the article. If you start an article in draft, you should do the bulk load of the work working on it to get it ready for mainspace. It's fine to ask for assistance with working on the article.

Now onto the reason to sites in question. Looking at FloTrack and they do have writers who follow track. They report results and other news in the sport. Use it for that and that only. Don't use "five you need to know about (insert name here)" or other non-news or result article. As well, I came across an article from posted from another source ie: Race Results Weekly. Looking at Race Results Weekly and you have to subscribe to get any news and results. You can't even read an excerpt. With that, someone with FloTrack must have a subscription.

CITIUS Mag has articles you can cite with a number of writers. Looks good.

Articles on both sites are not just a paragraph or two. They go in depth. Good to go with both. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mr. C.C. thank you so much! I appreciate the help. How I usually start articles is with a big dump of citations like here and more recently here, what I meant was that the article isn't the usual obscurity I dabble in. I full expect to do 99.9% of work in the article but wanted it to be a clear space for anyone else wanting to help create the article. Again, thank you! AdmiralAckbar1977 ^{talk contribs} 18:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@AdmiralAckbar1977, instead of talking about the draft here, I'll take it to your talk page. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

celtalks.com

Is celtalks.com a reliable source for dates of birth? See this edit at Shobha Mohan where celtalks.com/celebs/shobha-mohan?ID=14863 is cited as the source (ignore the faulty cite syntax).  — Archer1234 (t·c) 03:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

No, that is a blog which are deemed unreliable across the project. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

adobo magazine

Is the adobo magazine reliable? I keep seeing it during looking for sources on my draft. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 08:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Apparently founded 2006, based in the Philippines. I don't find much about it beyond its own puff. Its about page has "A three-time record-breaking third Philippine Quill Top Award, an Asia-Pacific AdStars International Lifetime Achievement Awards, numerous Stevie Awards Asia Pacific Awards". It seems to have been mentioned some 346 times in Wikipedia. 73 results in google scholar. Note I haven't dug down much into how they were mentioned. I would say insufficient information so far and someone from the Philippines might have a better idea. On the whole I would be wary. Erp (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Journal of Public Space

This journal [199] is used on a new page Al-Qaed Ibrahim Mosque and I noted that it was marked as unreliable/blacklisted by a user script (CiteHighlighter) but could not find any reference to it anywhere on the site. Would like clarification. Reconrabbit 18:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It's flagged because the link goes to ResearchGate. A paper hosted on ResearchGate may or may not be reliable. (I may use a different ref warning tool, to me it only shows as a questionable ref, not as an unreliable/blacklisted ref.) Schazjmd (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I see my mistake: I had corrected the URL to link directly to journalpublicspace.org, but it was changed back to ResearchGate due to an edit conflict. Thanks. Reconrabbit 18:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz (mywikibiz.com)

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

Previous RSN discussions: [200], [201]

Article: Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#MyWikiBiz

Edit in question: [202]

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK can someone clarify what is being discussed? I thought it was about these edits[203] to User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer (or more specifically this edit[204] that reverted vandalsim without the MyWikiBiz URL). This is not an article WP:RS/WP:DUE it any other policy about content wouldn't apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arcadia Publishing

I have written an article Reardon Building using several Arcadia Publishing books as sources. I need a second pair of eyes to let me know if these citations are reliable. This building is part of the Carmel-by-the-Sea, California Historic Commercial District. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: see Talk:Reardon Building#Notability tag for recent ongoing discussion about the source, and WP:ARCADIA for an archived community-wide RSN discussion. Left guide (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The WP:ARCADIA discussion is about four-years old and involved just a handful of editors; seems worthwhile to revisit.

A review essay in the academic journal Ohio Valley History has this to say about Arcadia Publishing: some of the books are somewhat superficial and deserving of the denigrating term "coffee table" volumes. On the other hand, many of Arcadia's authors are well-respected professionals with a lifelong interest in their communities. As co-editor of the Encyclopedia of Northern Kentucky (forthcoming from University Press of Kentucky), I have proudly worked with nearly all of the authors reviewed in this essay, many of whom have contributed entries to the encyclopedia. They include librarians, historians, a professor, two historic preservationists, two planners, a medical doctor, a nurse, and a journalist/publisher. See page 85 of Tenkotte, Paul A. (Summer 2007). "The Blossoming of Regional History and the Role of Arcadia Publishing". Ohio Valley History. 33 (1): 85–91.

From this, I gather that Arcadia Publishing's books span a range. Their reliability should be assessed on a case by case basis, not unilaterally disregarded. Reviews of the books and professional backgrounds of the authors would be good cues to look at. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Local history is a field where standards can certainly be variable. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this author reliable?

It just came to my realization that virtually all of the Arcadia books I've been dealing with are written by "Alissandra Dramov", who's three Arcadia books (and one book self-published by AuthorHouse) are cited en masse across articles related to Carmel-by-the-Sea. I could not find any evidence of her writing under other publishers, nor any evidence of her work being vouched for by independent reliable sources. Is this author reliable in accordance with WP:RS criteria? Left guide (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Seeing what's out there for one author simplifies the question, and helps us make a narrower decision that doesn't unnecessarily sweep up other books or sources. From my own look around, I found the following, ordered chronologically:

• Clark Coleman, "New Book Explores Carmel's Beginnings", Monterey Herald, April 1, 2014, is a review of Dramov's first book (the one self-published through AuthorHouse), Carmel-by-the-sea, the Early Years (1903–1913). The Monterey Herald said of the book, For anyone interested in local history, this book is a good start, offering an overview of Carmel's first 10 years without getting into extraneous details.
• Maria C. Brandt and Diane M. T. North's "A Selected Catalogue of World War I Memorials and Cemeteries Honoring Californians", California History 97, no. 3 (Fall 2020): 162–194, here 186n16, cites, without criticism or qualification, Dramov's Historic Buildings of Downtown Carmel-by-the-sea (Arcadia, 2019) for information about the World War I Memorial Arch and Bell there. Seeing that authors of a peer-reviewed academic article evidently regard the book as a reference text to use without criticism is reassuring. (It's also a relatively minor use.)
• Lisa Crawford Watson, "Local Books: Consistency amid Change", Monterey Herald, March 19, 2023, is a profile of Dramov and reports on her four books about Carmel-by-the-sea. The Monterey Herald reported that Dramov had a career in broadcast journalism, described as follows: she went off to University of San Francisco, where she majored in government and minored in history, before heading to law school. One year in, she decided law was not her field, and pursued broadcast journalism instead [...] Dramov became the producer of the 6 o’clock news at KION. More interested in working on air, she pursued new markets in Arizona, Ohio, and Nebraska [...] In late 2001, she came home to Carmel and continued her broadcast career in Monterey County. And then wrote four books.

P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

How much weight do the voices of Clark Coleman and Lisa Crawford Watson carry in scrutinizing the author for WP:RS purposes? Unless I'm missing something, I see run-of-the-mill news reporting by run-of-the-mill news reporters from the adjacent small town/county paper. ("hey, this book is out now and I think it's cool") I imagine that many self-published books routinely receive such coverage upon release. Left guide (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I also see run-of-the-mill reporting (as in "ordinary"), but I wonder a little at the seeming implication that ordinaryness is a problem. I see conventional, sensible journalism providing conventional, sensible coverage. Unorthodox and editorially irregular newspapers would not be useful for analyzing if a source is WP:RS.

We could both imagine many things, but I'm not sure what imagining has to do with the matter. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, isn't heavily depending on Alissandra Dramov and Lynn Momboisse Historic Homes and Inns of Carmel-by-the-Sea

to establish article notability of notability of numerous building articles undue? Many of numerous articles about houses and buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea are created by the same editor and significantly dependent on Dramov or Momboisse book. That same editor has also previously inserted Momboisse's BLOG and voicemap.me travel guide as sources and I was even starting to believe possible COI.

The photo caption of those books remind me of the pokemon character book and I believe using those caption to assert notability is similar to using this book to https://shop.scholastic.com/parent-ecommerce/books/pokemon-super-deluxe-essential-handbook-9781338230895.html create numerous pokemon articles. Graywalls (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls: I do agree that it's undue at best, even if somehow discussion here concludes that it's reliable. I know you invoke WP:POKEMON often, see also WP:INDISCRIMINATESOURCES if you haven't already, which is probably more policy/guideline-based.

@Others: we have been dealing with a widespread systemic issue of Dramov/Arcadia sources being used to "support" notability claims across dozens of articles (see this template), basically every public building in a small town of 3,000 people, and so I think this centralized discussion should also aim to help settle that issue. Left guide (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Pokémon Super Deluxe Essential Handbook: The Need-to-Know Stats and Facts on Over 800 Characters was directly produced by the Pokémon Company; they're credited right on the copyright page. As such, that wouldn't be an independent source for Pokémon characters; instead it's a primary source. I don't think the comparison quite holds to Arcadia Publishing books. WP:PUBLISHED doesn't establish a word minimum for what makes a source reliable for a topic.

I'm not very familiar with Voicemap.me, but it looks like they actually do have editors and an editorial process? (i. e., it's not pure self-publication).

It's true that multiple publications from the same author don't contribute as much weight to determining notability as multiple publications from multiple different authors do. I think that may be getting beyond the question of reliability, though, which is the purpose of the RSN. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Dramov is a councilperson of Carmel; she has a vested interest in promoting the town and its real estate holdings. This may affect the neutrality of her writings on Carmel. [205] Given this political connection, there could be some Boosterism of the importance of certain buildings to acquire historical status. Netherzone (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Then WP:COISOURCE certainly applies, in addition to the other factors in play here. Left guide (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Dramov's election seems to postdate some of her books, leaving me less sure of the cause and effect. The link you shared states Dramov was elected in November 2022, and Pam Marino, Four Candidates Are Vying for Two Open Seats on the Carmel City Council", Monterey County Weekly, September 22, 2022, confirms that Dramov was a challenger for the seat—she was not yet a city councilor at the time. To the extent that this applies, I think it makes sense to apply it just to books that postdate her November 2022 election to the city council. And that itself we can understand in the context of Arcadia Publishing being a press independent of Carmel-by-the-sea and its city council. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

One of Dramov's platforms seems to be fighting against affordable housing in Carmel. Lynn Momboisse has a financial COI, as she's run a for-profit tour business in Carmel for at least 11 or 12 years. Both have a vested interest in promoting the historical homes, mansions, and buisinesses. To my way of thinking, these sources are not neutral, and should be used with caution if at all. Netherzone (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The Verge

Our current RSP entry on The Verge says that it is reliable for articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles. I think this should be upgraded to being a reliable source in general, as it is owned by Vox Media, which also operates Vox which RSP says is broadly generally reliable, and from my experience reading it I would consider it to be a largely impeccable source.

I ask this specifically because of the Eugene Gu article. Eugene Gu is a doctor who garnered considerable attention as a Twitter personality. In 2019, The Verge ran an investigative journalism piece on Gu, covering a number of controversies he had been involved with. [206]. The same allegations were also covered in a Vice News article published the year before [207]. The result of two RfCs conducted in 2021 and this month is that sexual assault/harrassment and domestic violence allegations mentioned in these pieces should not be included in the article due to the lack of wider coverage in other articles.

However @TarnishedPath: has been using the result of these RfCs as an excuse to excise all uses of The Verge article as a reference, even for uses that are not related to those covered in the RfCs, such as the allegation that Gu used sockpuppets on Twitter to attack critics, which heavily features in The Verge and Vice News articles. I think this is a misrepresentation of the result of these RfCs which did not cover this content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, this is not a question about what WP:RSP says. The RfC, which you closed as WP:SNOW at Special:Diff/1204650217 had clear consensus about not including the accusations contained in that Verge article. You introducing an edit trying to skirt around the RfC including it as a source with text reading "Gu became embroiled in a number of controversies relating to his tweets". Notably "number of controversies" is inclusive of the allegations which were covered by the RfC. You are trying to circumvent consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 05:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

When I wrote that controversies bit I had different controversies in mind than the sexual harassment/assault and domestic violence allegations. Specifically I was thinking of controversy Gu's claim that Dr. Glaumerflecken has a racist avatar as mentioned in the Vice piece, and the Kaepernick tweet which got him into trouble with his employer. I've modified by RfC close to make my opinion more clear, but my reading of the consensus in that discussion is that it was only for the exclusion of the allegation by "Allison"/Dr. Meowskis of sexual harassment/assault, and did not rule on any other material included in the piece. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be good to propose something a little bit more specific then in article talk, because the way you wrote it was quite broad and could easily be construed to include what was covered by the RfC. TarnishedPath^talk 05:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the RfC did not exclude other material in the piece, however your wording in that sentence I removed is very inclusive. TarnishedPath^talk 05:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Hemiauchenia that the Verge and Vice News are reliable sources. Vox Media is precise with its journalism and serious about editorial oversight, fact checking, and error correction, and both Verge and Vice News share that. These are high quality journalistic sources news enterprise known for solid investigative journalism.

For the record, TarnishedPath, pertaining to the Eugene Gu talk page comment that If we don't use primary sources in articles, we shouldn't be using them in our arguments in RfCs., WP:NOR explicitly does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@P-Makoto, this is about the outcome of an RfC which was clear that the allegations in the verge article should not be included in the article per WP:BLPCRIME. Editing to introduce wording which includes "number of controversies" when one of those controversies is exactly what the RfC covered and then using the same source which was proposed in the RfC in support of the proposal is an attempt to circumvent consensus. This is not a question for WP:RSN. TarnishedPath^talk 05:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The question about whether or not the Verge can be considered generally reliable in general and not only for articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles is a question for WP:RSN. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• The consensus on WP:RSP for Vice is yellow; it's not generally considered a BLP-quality source and shouldn't be used for clearly BLP-sensitive things (which these obviously are.) The Verge might be usable but there's plenty of reason to be cautious about something BLP-sensitive that only a single usable source has covered; and the fact that multiple RFCs about very similar allegations, cited to similar sources, have failed overwhelmingly on talk suggests that this might not be worth pursuing. Something else I'd point out is that the first RFC on this happened in 2021 (and these ultimately all concern the same related incident) - given that it has been three years, there should be additional sourcing now. If there isn't then it seems unlikely that there's WP:SUSTAINED coverage, which is an additional reason not to include it. --Aquillion (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Gu openly admitted to having access to one of the sockpuppet accounts in question in The Verge article, and the sockpuppetry allegations were briefly covered by an Ars Technica article in 2020, which treated them as factual [208]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• These aren't appropriate sources for anything BLP-sensitive. It's undisputed not to include serious allegations that have been denied and have not received wider coverage. In this context - trumped up charges of Twitter sockpuppetry against someone who is a well known critic of Donald Trump - for me it is a definite no on using these as RS. Cornsimpel (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Gu openly admitted to operating the account. To quote The Verge article: On Twitter, [Gu] claimed that Mary Laury’s account was “an anonymous account people close to me created to address the trolling issues I was encountering from Trump supporters on Twitter. After a while I also shared access of this account to help combat the trolls.” If Gu openly admits to it it's hardly "trumped up" is it? Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Trumped up is what it is if you don't care, which I don't. The only RSN question is whether RSN or talk page consensus should decide this issue. If Gu admitted it, then it's no longer a BLP issue, and editors at the article should decide if its worthy of including in an encyclopedia article. Cornsimpel (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content issue rather than a reliability one. That content can be reliably sourced is not in itself a reason to include it in an article (that instead is a matter for talk page discussion and consensus building), instead reliable sources guide the discussion on what should be in an article and anything that is in the article must be reliably sourced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Precisely. TarnishedPath^talk 01:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  The header of this noticeboard reads: Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context! Emphasis mine. There was some discussion of The Verge article in Archive 2, and one user questioned whether the RSP label saying that the The Verge was reliable for technology, science, and automobiles meant that it was less reliable for other topics, which in my opinion is not the case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  The RFC on the Verge was for Is The Verge generally considered a reliable news source for use in articles relating to technology, science, culture, and cars?and the close was that it was. That is all that can be taken from its entry on RSP. Whether it is reliable for anything else is not something that RSP can answer. RFCs answer only the question they ask, editors may have completely different answers to a different question. This would also apply to the RFC about the allegations by "Allison" against the subject. Just because those allegations shouldn't be included doesn't give reason to remove other instances of The Verge being used as a reference.
  If someone wants to state what those references where and what content they supported per WP:RSCONTEXT, it should be discussed here. Overwise I'll stick to my comment about this appearing to be a content dispute. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Heavily-"affiliated" websites

There is an increasing prevalence on some websites of having a) a cookie policy that not only makes it difficult to opt out, decline or refuse cookies, but also b) uses a separate "legitimate interest" basis for including cookies, even as they claim they care about our privacy. The cookies are for a lot of what they call "affiliates." We're not just talking Google Analytics/AdWords and equivalents, we're talking over 1,500 listed affiliates on some sites! I wanted to check the content of one such page just now - a page on the Comic Book Resources website used ten times as a reference on Daredevil: Born Again, but to do so without accepting affiliates' "legitimate interest" cookies (the "legitimate interest" is "we want to advertise stuff to you and track the other sites you visit to do that"), I had to click over 100 times to opt out of receiving such cookies, and in doing so, I had only got as far as the letter D, before I gave up. Not every affiliate had the 'legitimate interest' option, but any that did have it were opt-out rather than opt-in. I'm guessing it would have taken over 500 clicks to decline them all and get to the content. There was no 'Reject all' option.

What would peoples' thoughts be on declaring such sites to be non-reliable, by default? I've come across them mostly on pop-culture topics - movies, music, games, "celebrities" and similar. While they are legitimate sites, their content rarely seems to be in-depth, and it may just be confirmation bias, but the standard of content seems to have dropped since the trend of "legitimate interest" has come along, as they're presumably getting increased income per page view and are using SEO tactics to have many smaller, related articles rather than longer, more in-depth ones. I want to get a general feel for opinions here, before possibly posting a formal RfC. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Against. Calling possibly-reliable sites unreliable would be dishonest. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The proliferation of Internet cookies and advertising bothers me as much as the next person, but I don't think that on its own is cause for deeming a source unreliable. The quality of the content and editorial method remain what we should assess. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Can't access the site to judge the content and editorial method without accepting all the cookies or spending 15 minutes and 500 clicks rejecting them... Anyone got a number for Alanis? ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

And WP:SOURCEACCESS which is part of WP:V says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." But a new entry for The link note template could say "beware of cookies"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

That's an idea! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This is an adtech problem, not an editorial problem. It is annoying and bad for the internet in general but is completely orthogonal to reliability. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph

Oh man. I have been noticing a decline in their editorial oversight recently, but this is just ridiculous. Scorpions1325 (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Which part of this article are you saying is false? Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't access it now. It is stuck behind a paywall. I am pretty sure there was something about bundling that seemed false. I don't quite remember. Scorpions/1325 (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is yahoo's reprint. Looks to me like a first-person essay, wouldn't be reliable for anything except ABOUTSELF if Emma Pruen had an article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Two suggestions, 1) clear your browser's cookies for The Telegraph's domain, and 2) if that doesn't work, it's always worth checking if the article has been archived on a site like the Wayback Machine or archive.today. Sometimes those sites archive the full text of articles behind paywalls. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I already tried archive.today. It is too soon. Scorpions1325 (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

If archive.today doesn't yet have an archive of the article, ask it to archive it. Worst case, it archives the paywall, best case it doesn't. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot that's false in this. The article itself seems to be a transcription of an interview with a mother who refused to vaccinate her children, with the exception of a tetanus vaccine. She talks a lot about the potential harms of giving her children the MMR vaccine, and though while she sidesteps Wakefield's claims about autism she does express concerns about the supposed dangers of overloading a child's immune system from the combined MMR shot.

She then talks about how her younger child caught measles when he six, and tried to treat this with homeopathy. Her older child, who was 16 at the time and sitting his GCSE, upon seeing how poorly his brother was doing made the decision to get vaccinated himself so that he wouldn't miss time from school due to the exams. She then writes about how her older son, upon receiving the vaccine, became so ill – with flu-like symptoms and terrible headaches that went on for ages and how that "vindicated [her] opnion" not to vaccinate her children.

When read as a whole, the article itself is very much a promotion of anti-vaccines and pseudoscientific alternative medicines. While that's bad, it's not the worst thing. Ordinarily Telegraph opinion articles are clearly marked as such with the header "Comment" above the title, for example here's an opinion article on electric cars. This article however, while it is clearly the opinion of a mother, and one who has absolutely no medical training (the article states she's a relationship coach) is not marked as such. It's been placed in the Health/Parenting/Children section of the paper. Thankfully the article itself uses first person language throughout, so it's otherwise easy to identify as an opinion, but the lack of the clear identifier present could easily mislead readers not paying attention that this was an ordinary article.

If this is a sign of things to come from the paper, then we need to start being a lot more careful when citing them to differentiate their factual reporting articles from their unmarked opinion articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know how I forgot the claim about homeopathy. My memory sucks. Scorpions1325 (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It does sometimes have some wacky stuff about medicine but that's what you tend to get with rightwing newspapers. their audience doesn't like taking advice from experts and having immunization to save others sounds like socialism to them. I don't think any particular action is called for in this case as it is obviously a personal opinion. NadVolum (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The lack of an Opinion label on this is disturbing. We're going to have to keep an eye out. If they start doing this more broadly, especially if it's in other sections of the paper, that would really call into question their general reliability for articles after the time period they started doing that. Silverseren^C 17:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

If anyone wants the TL;DR: a "health" (not "comment") article in The Telegraph can be summed up as "Doctors who want to vaccinate your kids are bullies who want to jab babies. I didn't vaccinate mine. He got sick, but so what? Just use homeopathy and live 'chemical-free'." It's not the first trash I've seen in the Telegraph, but I don't recall how often it's labeled as opinion. Doing a search right now for 'telegraph vaccines' shows that the overwhelming number of stories from the UK Telegraph are about the harms of vaccines (at least those delivered by google in a no-history browser window). On the other hand, their vaccines topic page shows most are about a surge in measles and other more reality-based coverage. I was going to comment here to say that the "no consensus" label for The Telegraph at WP:RSP should probably mention health content, but was surprised to see it as "generally reliable". The big RfC linked from RSP for that determination is ... specific to a particular domain (transgender issues), yet we consider it generally reliable beyond that scope. Hmm. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It is worth noting that "Health" sections is British papers are usually fluffy Saturday supplements detailing personal experiences. If you go to the Guardian, click on "lifestyle" and under that you get the option "health and fitness". None of the articles there are anything other than human interest stories where people relate their story. I don't believe the fact the Telegraph allowed a vaccine hesitant parent to do this is a problem, unless she was presented as an expert or her opinions approved of editorially in some way.--Boynamedsue (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Anything in the Telegraph that refers to right-wing conspiracy theories or random bigotry, such as climate change, vaccines-are-harmful, transgender issues, should not be used. The Tele is going downhill fast and I don't think it will be too long before it ends up in the same bin as the Mail or Express. It's a shame. Edit: I forgot about the homeopathy thing. Perhaps we should just bundle everything into the "random nonsense and bigotry" category, regardless of political view. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Regardless of which categories, it probably shouldn't be green at RSP... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Agreed, especially if it's gone full Wakefield! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

      Being marked in full green as "generally reliable" does surprise me. "Additional considerations" or "no consensus", at the very least, seem more suitable. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It's green because we've had numerous RfCs on the topic, and the consensus of users is generally reliable. Largely because bias does not make something unreliable, even when it is bias that lots of wikipedians find icky. I don't see that changing because of an interview in which a rando displays her stupidity.--Boynamedsue (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It's green because we've had numerous RfCs - links? I see exactly one RfC, and it was only about transgender topics. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: You don't spend as much time on this board as I do. The last RfC on the reliability of the Daily Telegraph was closed all the way back on the 8th of January, the closer summed it up thusly: Once again, Wikipedians reach a clear consensus that the Daily Telegraph is a reliable source--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• I feel like this is a common fallacy when discussing biased sources - people focus on the bias and say that that doesn't make it reliable, without engaging with the fact that a source that is mostly famous for being biased lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In effect it is almost like some people read WP:BIASED as saying that bias alone renders a source reliable, as opposed to being something that does not necessarily render a source unreliable. And certainly publishing actual fringe positions goes beyond just being biased. --Aquillion (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• We can always hold another RFC, but it may be worth surveying secondary coverage first. Adding a small note to their RSP entry about the lifestyle section being opinion-based is simple enough, but changing a source's categorization will probably require more in-depth analysis of how they're covered and what their reputation is. EDIT: Doing a quick search for secondary coverage that has taken issues with the Telegraph's health and medical reporting, this leaped out at me: Canadian Medical Association Journal. Covers an article in the Telegraph entitled secondhand smoke does no harm, in the scathing manner you would expect (The story she filed about a small, run-of-the-mill study involving exposure to secondhand smoke consisted mostly of tobacco-lobby spin and a lot of egregious mistakes.) Another source (pg. 354) covering conspiracy theories about vaccines notes that, of the sources they surveyed, ...only in one case does the author endorse conspiratorial thinking. This is an article published in 2010 by The Daily Telegraph and significantly titled “The hidden hand of powerful forces”; while discussing the GMC’s ruling against Andrew Wakefield [...] The author is here claiming that Andrew Wakefield and his colleague were not struck off the British medical register because of scientific and medical malpractice, and that this ruling is actually an attempt to silence them on the part of the so-called “medical establishment”. --Aquillion (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Rhododendrites is correct. The Telegraph has become markedly less reliable since 2015, not just due to the ownership shenanigans. Private Eye has always called it the "Dreary Torygraph", which is picturesque but largely accurate. Since Brexit, it has become a full-on cheerleader for the worst excesses of the British far-white. There was an op-ed promoted with a picture callout on the front page where a columnist said that Britain needs "an insurgent like Trump", and it routinely publishes abject nonsense about immigration, Brexit, the awesome job the Tories are doing (set for electoral annihilation this year), and promoting people like Farage and Toby Young - they seem to see themselves as leading the "anti-woke" charge of the culture insurgency.¹

I would support downgrading it to at best "use with caution" for anything to do with politics, climate change, the culture insurgency (especially gender issues).

But this article is not even run-of-the-mill Telegraph garbage. It's an op-ed by someone who is still on Planet Wakefield, fourteen years and six days after his fraudulent paper was retracted. So this article is probably not the vehicle for that discussion, because it's obviously not fit for inclusion on numerous grounds.

¹I maintain that it's a culture insurgency, not a culture war, in that it is prosecuted only by one side, who are fanatically determined to undo any progress that erodes the privilege of the most privileged group in the West: affluent straight white Christian men.

Guy (help! - typo?) 12:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be relying heavily on op-eds, which are different from news reporting. Not liking reporting or opinions that favor Brexit, Trump, conservatism, etc., is no reason to deprecate or downgrade an entire publication (and reeks of a purity crusade to purge all 'wrongthink' from Wikipedia regardless of publisher). I'm not a regular reader of the Telegraph, but perhaps it's similar to the Wall Street Journal (green per WP:WSJ) with op-eds considered case-by-case per WP:RSOPINION and WP:WEIGHT? --Animalparty! (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder what is going on with people posting on here. Is anybody saying that there is a false claim in this article? This is absolutely obviously an opinion article, relating one individual's personal interpretation of their own experience. It would not be RS for anything relating to medicine (or indeed anything not the opinion of the writer), and would not be WP:DUE for anything else. Also, there is no evidence of a single false claim here so far. I can't read it, as it's behind a paywall, so we need direct quotes on here please.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC) This particular article doesn't really raise issues to me. It's very obviously a personal story. It's not opinion; it's more "human interest". I don't think its a concern it doesn't have the word "opinion", because it's from a "Health" section, not a news section. I can't imagine a single conceivable instance where someone would think to use this article as a source in Wikipedia. Even if someone did, we could just remove it on the basis of WP:MEDRS. I do agree that the Telegraph is not a great source for culture war topics (e.g. gender, critical race theory), and maybe some words of caution should be inserted into RSP, but I'm not sure it's worth removing its green status for that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I now have access to the source. There is some nonsense about how 3 vaccines (MMR vaccine) in one will overload their child's immune system. That is the exact same argument that many of Andrew Wakefield's supporters make. Scorpions1325 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Right, so it would seem no false claims are made? She does think that.--Boynamedsue (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure. The question is, why would anyone care? It's a random personal opinion by a non-expert, in the lifestyle section, whining about the medical establishing not giving enough credence to the biggest scientific fraud of the 20th Century. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so I've read this now, and I'm baffled with the response. It's a "one woman's personal story" article. It would never be used. The Wakefield adjacent claim is actually this And I didn’t want my child’s system overloaded by dosing them with three illnesses at the same time, especially since they are very low risk diseases. which is preceeded by My main concern with the MMR vaccine was giving it all at once to young babies, it wasn’t the link with autism (which has since been debunked) that scared me. The whole article is simply an interview detailing an individual woman's experience in the first person, she is not presented as an expert. There is no claim whatsoever about the safety of vaccines in the article.

Interviewing a vaccine-hesitant woman does not have any bearing at all on whether a source is reliable, it is hard not to see this discussion as part of a culture war in and of itself. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If it were a real interview, the interviewer's/journalist's voice would be in there. This is a piece simply promoting an anti-vaxer's point of view without qualification and labeling it as "health". By the logic I'm seeing here, a source can publish absolutely any misleading trash they want, put it in the same section as non-opinion content, and still be reliable as long as, what, the author of the piece "does think that"? I see a couple people focus on whether it made "false claims". The fact that it doesn't go out of its way to use declarative sentences saying homeopathy works, doctors don't know better than you, vaccines aren't worth getting, and the rest of the anti-vax tropes doesn't mean it's not misinformation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This type of first person narrative interview is common in the lifestyle sections of British papers, and the label "health" indicates it is not news coverage in the UK. It is labelled "As told to Susanna Galton", which indicates it is one person's view recounted to a journalist. Nothing in the article is the journalist's voice, here is a similar example from the Guardian, less controversial but equally completely unusable for us. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Wait, hold up, anything labeled "health" in the British press is opinion and should never be used for statements of fact in the article voice? This is not at all going to be obvious to people elsewhere and needs to be clearly indicated in relevant RSP entries. I have absolutely seen the Telegraph's health section in particular used to cite statements of fact in the article voice before, sometimes even entire paragraphs. Beyond that, the fact that they publish WP:FRINGE perspectives in that section is significant and is an obvious thing to caution editors about even when they're just considering using it with attribution via WP:RSOPINION. --Aquillion (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I would absolutely be very careful about using anything labelled "health", "fitness" or "health and fitness" in a British newspaper. These sections are mostly opinion, have a similar reliability to a fitness magazine and are often largely opinion. There are lots of similar sections in the UK press, for example "beauty", "money" or "home and garden" which are similarly fluffy but often usable, however, health related areas would collide with WP:MEDRS. Stuff in the news and politics sections, often labelled "health news" should be fine though.--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to endorse (as a UK newspaper reader) what Boynamedsue is saying. Reliable sources should not be downgraded because they have supplements full of human interest fluff. I would see that MEDRS is a robust enough tool to keep that stuff out of our project. If there's a genuine problem of non-UK WP editors filling our medical related pages with content from human interest sections of UK papers, then we need to add a comment in the RSP listing for all of the UK broadsheets, not just the Telegraph, but I'd need persuasion this is a widespread problem. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• The issue here is that it's advancing a WP:FRINGE perspective and is not clearly labeled as opinion (I agree that it clearly is opinion, but the unclear labeling is a problem.) Usually we don't judge a source by what it says, but promoting fringe views is the one exception. I think the correct thing to do might be to update the Daily Telegraph's RSP entry to note that its "lifestyle" section is opinion-based and should not be used for statements of fact in the article voice, plus possibly noting that that section has published fringe views and should be used with caution even for opinions. Someone citing it casually might see a page like that and think that it's as reliable as the rest of the Telegraph and is non-opinion (since the fact that the lifestyle section contains opinion is sort of tucked away in its description, which is a bit vague by calling it Unmissable features, opinions and experiences from across The Telegraph’s lifestyle sections. I definitely feel like I've run into this before and have had disputes with editors who argued that the wording means that only some parts of the lifestyle section are opinion, which doesn't seem defensible if they're publishing stuff like this there. --Aquillion (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  That sounds reasonable to me; clearly it doesn't affect the broader reliability of the source, but it is beneficial to make it clearer to editors what sections they put their nonsense in. BilledMammal (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Would you mind linking to a discussion similar to this, so we could look at it?--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• I read that as a one-in-a-time fluke rather than any indicator of the overall paper's quality. It is clearly an opinion piece being written in first-person and the end by-line ("as told to...") supports that its more opinion than a researched news piece. This is where DUCK comes in to mark that specific piece as unreliable for facts simply how its presented as an op-ed. --Masem (t) 13:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• The current top story in Telegraph Health is entitled: The vaccinations timebomb – and what to do if you’ve missed them btw, if they are attempting to push an antivax agenda, they are not doing a very good job.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Remember, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Has anyone articulated where this particular Telegraph article is, has been, or might be used as a reference on Wikipedia, or is this whole discussion just moral outrage that some people with differing (even dangerous) opinions on vaccines get their opinions mentioned somewhere in print? I'm glad that there are editors savvy enough to recognize an opinion article even when the word "opinion" is not explicitly stamped at the top. From my casual browsing of the Telegraph website, many articles under the "Health & Fitness" category are human interest articles (sometimes autobiographical) focusing on one person's perspective ("Despite having a rare disease, I'm a world-champion athlete", "I learnt to love food despite my mother's eating disorder") that would be inappropriate anywhere but an article about that human. Others are general news articles "(Aspartame: The billion dollar battle to keep sweeteners in our drinks") that might be used or considered for WP:DUE. Don't forget that virtually all serious newspapers serve fluff along with substance to their readers (The New York Times today has an article "Super Snacks for the Super Bowl": but what if I don't like those snacks!?). We are not beholden to treat every article as an immediately usable source, nor should we reject a publication entirely because it also publishes fluff, comics, horoscopes, and trivia. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Washington City Paper, Washington Blade, and Washingtonian

I reviewed William Keiser at AfC and decided to accept the draft because I felt it would have a half decent chance in an AfD if it were to be nominated. Before accepting the draft I provided my analysis of the sources and their reliability on the talk page (in this diff). I'm curious what other editors thoughts are on the sources from the Washington City Paper, the Washington Blade, and the Washingtonian. Are these sources reliable enough to contribute to the notability of Keiser? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliable? Probably. But they're still city papers covering a local subject, which I personally give very little weight. Beyond the reliability issue, I wouldn't consider these anything close to significant coverage of Keiser himself. In the Washington City Paper, parts of paragraphs three and nine are about Keiser; the Washington Blade talks about him for part of a sentence in the second paragraph; the Washingtonian in part of paragraph three. Virtually all of the content is about the podcast itself, though these articles are short enough that I don't think I'd consider them significant coverage about that, either. Woodroar (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Woodroar: I know most editors seem to dismiss local news coverage, however, I'm unaware of any policies or guidelines that reflect this opinion (WP:AUD seems to apply specifically to companies). Are the sources less reliable because they are local? Regarding notability perhaps I'll have it renamed/moved to the name of the podcast. I was of the opinion that it was borderline, but your reaction suggests otherwise. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Do most editors dismiss local/regional news coverage? I figure the best measure of reliability are reputation for factuality and editorial oversight. The New York Post has national circulation but I consider it much less reliable than, say, the Salt Lake Tribune with its award-winning journalists—or, for that matter, perhaps the Washingtonian. I'm just not personally familiar with these Washington newspapers. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@P-Makoto: I was under the impression that it was a widely held opinion, but I suppose I don't have any specific examples. In regard to the Washingtonian specifically, they have a list of staff on their website as well as some guidelines for pitches. Looks like they frequently publish listicles and tabloid news, but the news and politics column looks decent. According to the Washington Post they won two National Magazine Awards in 1985 and their about page claims they've won 5 in total. TipsyElephant (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the contact us page also includes an email address near the top of the page specifically for sending them corrections, which makes me think they are willing to make corrections to their articles when mistakes are made. TipsyElephant (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't say how many editors dismiss or give lesser weight to local/regional sources, but I know that some editors !vote that way and I personally agree with it. My rationale is that it's like a geographical version of WP:SUSTAINED: if a subject never receives coverage outside a city or regional area, how important can it be? I readily admit that it's not in any policy or guideline. I see it like WP:IAR in reverse, akin to the personal, subjective standards that we all have—for example, paragraph requirements for WP:SIGCOV or the point when sourced but (potentially) WP:UNDUE content should be removed.

I also agree that some local media is better than others. The New York Times is probably one of the best, but like most papers they still run local obituaries and wedding announcements—and they can come across like similar content in a small-town paper. You know, paid placement, written by the family, not edited, etc. It's all contextual. Personally, I'd want to see broader coverage before considering Keiser or the podcast to meet the WP:GNG, but you're welcome to disagree. Woodroar (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I mean, Keiser is based in LA, right? So local coverage seems reasonable to use here either way. Even if he isn't it's probably fine... I think the usual objection to local coverage is more when people try to use it in situations where higher-quality national, international, or academic coverage exists. In that case there are potential WP:DUE issues for anything that is only cited to local news, especially local news from a location unrelated to the topic, since it creates "why are we weighing this small local paper equal to CNN or the NYT" problems. But using local news from the subject's locale to cover a subject that lacks significant higher-tier coverage seems reasonable to me; that's the sort of thing local news sources are for if we're going to use them for anything. --Aquillion (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of the Herald Sun

Colddays underwater uses it as a source in nearly all of their edits Interestingly, the source has never been checked for trustworthiness. ''Flux55'' (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

We've discussed the Australian Murdoch tabloids here before. I'm not sure there's been enough for a WP:RSP entry - but rough consensus was that they should be treated with a bit of caution, and certainly not for opinion columns. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#Herald_Sun_and_Andrew_Bolt, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_138#Herald_Sun_columnist_blog - David Gerard (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'm glad the user was blocked, and David is right: edits like this [209], introducing serious allegations based solely on a Murdoch tabloid, are obviously inappropriate on a WP:BLP. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Are Official US Government Letters To A Community's Website Reliable Sources?

I am new to Wikipedia. I would like to add information stating that there have been consultation requests from certain government departments to this Native American Tribe on the Tribe’s Wikipedia page.

The government letters are official documents that the Tribe received, and they posted copies of the letters on their website.

I guess these letters would be considered primary sources that contain information on different government projects they wish to inform or consult with the Tribe about.

The letters I want to use are all on government letterhead, written by an official representative of the department, signed by the official, and contact information is included.

They are not replies to previous communications and they do not state opinions.

I’m thinking that I want to state that a particular government department requested consultation with the Tribe on so-and-so project then cite the statement with the letter posted for this department on the Tribe’s website.

If done like this, would this be considered a reliable source?

Context information: The Tribe’s webpage that contains the letters is Government Agencies Relationships and Consults with the Tribe. If this is considered an acceptable source, then it will be added under Government Agencies Relationships and Consults with the Tribe.

The first letter linked to on this page would be an example showing that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requested comments from the Chairman of the Tribe on a South Texas Project. I have not yet edited anything on the Tribe’s Wikipedia page because I want to be sure that the Tribe’s webpage with the letters I use are reliable sources.

https://www.lipanapache.org/LAT/assets/PDFs/G2G/2020-05-04_US_NRC.pdf

Using this example of a letter I would cite on the Tribe’s webpage, I would add to the Wikipedia page in an appropriate place that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has requested comments that the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas may have to offer on the scope of the environmental review.” Whitewolfdog1 (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

== RfC about the validity of government documents on a community’s website ==

What do you think about the validity of these government documents if hosted on a community’s website? ~~~~ Whitewolfdog1 (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a properly-formatted RFC but I suggest you don't start one yet anyway. See WP:RFCBEFORE for why. --Aquillion (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• The issue is that they're likely to be WP:PRIMARY documents. Primary documents can be used in certain cases, but there's a lot of restrictions on them because you have to be careful not to perform WP:OR / WP:SYNTH; generally, if any interpretation or analysis is required, or if you're using them to try and prove or demonstrate something in a particular context, then you would need a secondary source for that aspect instead. There's also often WP:DUE weight issues when it comes to "raw data" primary sources like this. In this case the obvious question is - why does it matter that they requested environmental review? (And this is sort of a trick question because almost any answer to that is going to lead to "well, you need a secondary source demonstrating that it matters in that context.") --Aquillion (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Hindustan Times

Hindustan Times is an Indian English-language newspaper that is used as a source in lots of articles (I used the source sometimes). I tried searching up for its reliability, only to get a primary source about its reliability (positive) and a Quora post (negative). Since both can’t really establish anything about its reliability, I thought it would be good to bring this up here. P.S. There is this discussion where Hindustan Times mirrored Wikipedia here if I’m not wrong.

Options:

• Option 1: Reliable
• Option 2: Situational
• Option 3: Unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Brachy08 _(Talk) 07:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I want to wait for editors who know more about it before I choose one of the above options. I don't consider it WaPo level reliability but I don't know enough about it to say if it is unreliable. Certainly if I saw this cited I would want to see other sources alongside it. Cornsimpel (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason this requires an RFC and not a simple discussion, has there been a separate discussion elsewhere on the project that lead up to this RFC? The most recent discussion was this RFC Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 418#RfC: The Hindustan Times which went nowhere. Has an issue come up or some chronic issue with the source been identified? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Not really. Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of The Barony of Ynys Fawr

Hello. Can I use The Barony of Ynys Fawr to cite "In the Battle of Kauthal, the Bahmanis had a force of almost 40,000 whereas the Vijayanagar forces numbered almost 540,000", by taking from "In the battle of Kauthal 40,000 Muslim troops of the Bahmani Sultanate defeat possibly 540,000 troops of the kingdom of Vijayanagar by superior cavalry"? Imperial^[AFCND] 13:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That's an SCA site, a hobbyist site. I would not use it for anything except WP:ABOUTSELF. Schazjmd (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Is Followchain a reliable source

idk :DragonflySixtyseven said it is not Dr Jackson is not rweal (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.followchain.org/about/

I would say it is, the writer Lim How Wei has 8+ years of expertise in social media marketing.

The site also provides a lot of information regarding social media, it would be very helpful. Formerlychucks (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• For what content, exactly? There's no evidence of review, so it's unclear that it rises above the level of a blog, but it could be usable for uncontroversial facts. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  For social media related content. Formerlychucks (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

For reference, the specific claim under dispute here is whether this constitutes a basis to include soyjak.party in the "Soyjak" section of Wojak. Without getting into too much detail, this is a website whose users are remarkably badly behaved, even by the standards of imageboards (indeed, even by the standards of imageboard in 2024, which are lower still). The diff of the content that's being sourced to this site is Special:Diff/1205403768, which seems like obvious SEO slop.

With that out of the way, and looking at the site itself, it is more or less entirely SEO slop: most recent articles include "How to Fix Error Code 5 1 503 in Helldivers 2", "How to Fix “Server Request Failed” Error in Helldivers 2", "How to Fix Helldivers 2 Failed to Join Game Lobby Error", and "What is the purpose of a “staking pool” in a Proof of Stake blockchain?", which is maybe the sloppiest slop ever slopped. I'd be inclined to say that this is some kind of marketing/content mill site. jp×g🗯️ 20:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

North Korea ‎ ‎Government Type Infobox

Can we get some experience editors over at Talk:North Korea#‎Government Type Infobox. Moxy- 05:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

TV Guide re: Film, Actors, Directors, Bios., etc.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#TV_Guide says:

TV Guide is considered generally reliable for television-related topics. Some editors consider TV Guide a primary source for air dates.

Two separate questions:
(1) Is TV Guide a reliable source for the matters named in the subject line above? 20:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC) --David Tornheim (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
(2) Is TV Guide reliable for the list of films acted in by Torin Thatcher [210] --David Tornheim (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's been nothing to suggest it's not. I myself used it fairly extensively for citing Lance Reddick's filmography upon his passing. The Kip 02:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Informally named dinosaurs

The article List of informally named dinosaurs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is, unsurprisingly, a cruft magnet. At present, a non-trivial number of entries are supported solely by the blogs of Darren Naish. Naish does publish books, and these are cited, and I think unproblematic, but should we really include entries sourced solely to his blog, or his "Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week" (svpow.wordpress.com / svpow.com)?

I guess my concern is single-sourcing as much as the unreviewed nature of these articles. If only one person attests an "informal name", that seems to me to be a bit of an open door for nonsense. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Naish is a subject expert, and his blog is therefore generally reliable for our purposes. He does do spoof articles sometimes, but always owns up, so that is one condition to take into account. However, his blog, excellent as it is, is still just a blog and probably shouldn't be assumed to confer WP:NOTABILITY in deletion discussions. Furthermore, I don't think Naish giving something a nickname on his blog makes that nickname necessarily WP:DUE for inclusion in our pages. But that is beyond the scope of this board, and should be dealt with in the talkpage of the relevant article.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Naish is enough of a widely respected expert that his blog will often be a high-quality source for palaeontological claims. But I'd prefer more than one source, yeah - David Gerard (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I went through the entire list and didn't find any entry cited only to Darren Naish's personal Tetrapod Zoology blog. I'll be happy to be corrected, but it makes me think that at the least, the amount is more trivial than Guy's OP on this thread implied. Additionally, I'm only seeing five reference notes cited to Darren Naish's Tetrapod Zoology blog, plus one citation to a post he wrote for Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week. There are four total citations to Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week, with the posts having various authors. This is on a list of 113 items with 254 citations. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I've previously brought up my concerns about this article being a cruft magnet on the talk page, and I agree that this article needs much more rigorous standards of inclusion. A particularly egregious one is "Cryptotyrannus", which was a working name that was accidentally included in a figure before being removed from the final version of the paper. I think that it should be a requirement for any name included in the list to have been used in at least one reliable secondary source independent of the person who first used the name in print, in order to demonstrate that the informal name is in any form of widespread use. I also think that purely descriptive names (e.g. "Angeac ornithomimosaur") are of questionable appropriateness for inclusion. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there are several names on this listed that should be removed. In my mind, "informally named" implies that the list should include proposed scientific names. Thus, nicknames ("Alan the Dinosaur", "Archbishop", etc.) and, like Ornithopsis said, descriptive names (which could be literally any unnamed dinosaur fossil) should not be included. What determines which "descriptive names" should be included? It seems like that is any combination that happens to be published of a descriptor and clade. Take, for example, two papers published within the past week that describe (but don't name) new dinosaur specimens. Surely the "Pisdura noasaurid"[211] and "Kirtland caenagathid"[212] shouldn't be included, even if those names were established? Perhaps a helpful solution to the cruft issue would be to remove the last inclusion point, "Nicknames or descriptive names given to specimens or taxa by researchers or the press." Proper inclusions should satisfy the nomen [nudum / manuscriptum / ex dissertationae] requirements, being a proposed species name. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

We at WikiProject Dinosaurs have had various discussions about sourcing criteria for this list, see Talk:List_of_informally_named_dinosaurs#Sourcing_requirements. Naish's blog was for a long time published on the Scientific American website, for what that's worth, and some of the early articles were published as a book [213]. SVPOW is run by Michael P. Taylor and Matt Wedel, two well-respected sauropod paleontologists, and not Naish. There has been disagreement on the talk page about whether specimens given nicknames by Naish (which I largely added) should be included on the list. That's something really to be discussed on the talkpage, as others have mentioned. (Full disclosure, I have corresponded with Naish on a handful of occasions years ago and went to his convention TetZooCon a decade ago). Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note that as long as the source cites a reliable authority figure, it doesn't matter whether it's a Blogspot or Scientific American website we cite for it. As for descriptive names, we have never concluded that they shouldn't be used, they're informal names and often used in the scientific literature, as in the case of the White Rock spinosaurid.[214] Names found in sources that have no authority attached to them should be removed, but should be discussed on a case by case basis, no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Acceptable use of SPS?

A self-published academic study on the subject of transport makes an important point, published (on Google Docs) in a form acceptable to policy, by a multiply-published expert, see [215] and [216]. I feel that we should include it in the article Low Traffic Neighbourhood, as follows:

In 2022 local elections were held across London. Many candidates had tweeted about LTNs, Labour candidates generally positively, Conservatives generally against; these tweets seemed to make very little difference to the number of votes cast for these candidates. If anything, tweeting positively about LTNs may have increased the number of votes for Labour councillors.Sound and fury? The impact of councillors’ LTN positions on voting behaviour in Greater London. July 2023. Jamie Furlong, Athena Brook, Charlie Hicks, Professor Rachel Aldred. accessed 28 Jan 2024.

Is this source acceptable? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Google docs are not stable. Bon courage (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the point about our definition of publication and our criteria for the use of SPS. This Google Doc seems entirely acceptable according to policy, although, as with most other SPSs, the author could change it at any time. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

One can usually take a snapshot. But why would we use a self-published Google Doc for a topic where there are oodles of peer-reviewed academic sources avialable? If the paper is truly making "an important point" surely RS will have made that point? Bon courage (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This particular point is significant in view of the electoral significance and social media uproar about LTNs, and this is the only paper I've found that makes it. The author, Professor Aldred, tells me: "We're hoping to publish this in a journal but it's currently not yet been submitted so given academic publication timeframes, it might not be for a while. Sorry." Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I would say wait until it IS published… in the meantime, keep looking for another source. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

OK...could we have your opinion on whether it's an acceptable source according to policy? I think it unequivocally is. If so I'd hope then to develop a consensus for or (more likely given comments so far) against its use, on the appropriate talk page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Everything's reliable for what it says (and this wouldn't be usable for assertions of fact). But the problem more is NPOV. Why would Wikipedia be paying attention to this source when no RS has? Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source, not an ersatz secondary one picking winners from among unpublished primary sources. Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications (see WP:EXPERTSPS). As co-authors Jamie Furlong and Rachel Aldred are both established experts in the subject of Low Traffic Neighborhoods who have been published in reliable academic sources, on those grounds, this self-published source is a reliable source.

Whether or not the proposed content should be included is a separate question of content, to be resolved at the talk page for the article. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

What evidence is there this was published by her? Slatersteven (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• This has been published via the wearepossible.org website. See their article[217] and it's link to the full report in pdf format[218] I don't see any reason to use the Google docs version. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Orlando Brown

This source: https://www.naijanews.com/buzz/people/orlando-brown-actor-wife-girlfriend-boyfriend-children-net-worth/ was used in Orlando Brown (actor) to support the claim that his fiance is Omena Alexandria. This source seems questionable, and so I wanted to get some input on it. Specifically, the website say wiki, which suggests that it might be user generated, but I could not find confirmation for that. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 17:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@GrayStorm, not a reliable source. As a rule of thumb, any source with "boyfriend girlfriend net worth" in the page title is a junk site that should never be used on WP:BLPs. Schazjmd (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the tip. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 17:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

What is the reliability of Tasnim News Agency?

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

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

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

Survey

Is Left Foot Forward a reliable (of course not impartial) source?

I'm asking because I wanted to assign the political position to a movement and I don't know if the source is reliable. Monito rapido (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was a group blog, but its about page describes a proper journalistic effort. Is there any known bad journalistic behaviour from LFF? (I haven't heard of any.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)