Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

< Wikipedia:Reliable sources
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RS/Noticeboard)
Latest comment: 1 hour ago by ActivelyDisinterested in topic Circularity and interviews with wikipedians regarding allegations of bias in wikipedia
    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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


    Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

    List of archives
    , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
    10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
    20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
    30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
    40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
    50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
    60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
    70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
    80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
    90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
    100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
    110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
    120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
    130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
    140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
    150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
    160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
    170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
    180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
    190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
    200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
    210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
    220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
    230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
    240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
    250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
    260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
    270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
    280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
    290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
    300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
    310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
    320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
    330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
    340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
    350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
    360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
    370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
    380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
    390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
    400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
    410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
    420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
    430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
    440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
    450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458

    Additional notes:

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


    RFC Jerusalem Post

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago169 comments58 people in discussion

    The reliability of the Jerusalem Post is:

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

    RFCBEFORE. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Survey (Jerusalem Post)

    edit
    • Option 4: the Jerusalem Post's coverage is extremely biased and is unfortunately extensively used throughout Wikipedia articles, to cite a few examples on these biases:
    • JP has been repeatedly propagating a false claim in its articles in recent months, calling the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, "Hezbollah-run," despite it not being affiliated with them and the fact that it is headed by an independent minister. [1] [2] [3].
    • On 12 October 2023, JP published an article that it had confirmed seeing evidence for babies that had been burnt and decapitated during the Kfar Aza massacre that is still online with no retraction despite being debunked.
    • JP propagated another false claim last year that a dead Palestinian child was a doll, which, although it retracted and apologized for, also puts into question its fact-checking processes. [4]
    • In 2020, Reuters revealed that the Jerusalem Post allowed an online deepfake to write bylines smearing a Palestinian couple over their activism. [5] Makeandtoss (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Have we just not come out of a discussion about this? Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

    That's what is being referred to as RFCBEFORE. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    So do we need another so soon? We can't keep discussing this every month or so. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Option #1Under the current Wikipedia context Option #1 is the best match. My original Option #2 choice is for after we reconfigure to recognize that every source is option #2. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1. Bias isn't unreliability. Nothing has been presented that shows any other RS that question the Jerusalem Post. Retractions are good actually. Andre🚐 19:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1 per Andre; also per Slater, wasn't there just an RfC about this? Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1 I would need stronger stuff than this to think otherwise. Cambalachero (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 4, as they still have clearly false statements on Oct 7 "decapitation babies" still online, after they have been debunked for over a year, Huldra (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
      You previously advocated that the Electronic Intifada shouldn't be deprecated because it's similar to the Jerusalem Post,[6] but now that the analogy isn't beneficial you say the Jerusalem Post should be deprecated.
      Specifically, you said that for the Tehran Times or Jerusalem Post: some areas you can presume them to be correct, others not. What changed that made you think the Jerusalem Post should be banned in virtually all circumstances, instead of just an Option 2? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
      but now that the analogy isn't beneficial you say the Jerusalem Post should be deprecated. If EI and JP are indeed comparable, the community consensus that EI is GUNREL should presumably apply to JP. I'm not aware of anything on EI as egregiously misleading and uncorrected as reports of decapitated babies, so I see no hypocrisy in Huldra's stance.
      However, I have used JP in my editing and made what I hope have been valuable contributions using it, so I would be more inclined to argue that both are Option 2 (or, to be consistent, that both are Option 3) and that particular details reported by either source might be more unreliable on a case-by-case basis. To me, stories like the beheaded babies are less a black mark on any particular source and moreso an indication that, particularly in instances where systemic bias is at play, we ought to think of even the most reliable sources differently, along the lines of @North8000's comment. Also a reminder that sources regarded as perennially unreliable like EI and The Grayzone can be a voice of reason in certain contexts where the mainstream media isn't doing its job. Unbandito (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I don't believe they are comparable. EI has promoted the conspiracy theory that most civilians that died on October 7th were killed by Israel. [7] But the person I'm originally replying to would have a much stronger point if they explained how the standards applied to EI can also apply to the Jerusalem Post. Right now, I see a proposal to deprecate based on a single story. That's not a standard that has been applied to any other publication onwiki.
      With respect to your position, what type of additional considerations would you recommend to editors using the Jerusalem Post?
      I agree with both your and North8000's position that all sources need to be considered in context. But in the current Wikipedia climate, Option 2 means "marginally reliable" or "additional considerations". If the only considerations are the same as those that would be applied to a generally reliable source, then Option 1 is the correct choice. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      "EI has promoted the conspiracy theory that most civilians that died on October 7th were killed by Israel." If you read the article, you will find that there is no link to EI for that statement. This, because EI has never said that, Huldra (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Given the context of the beheaded babies story and the example you bring up, I would say that JP and EI should be treated with special caution when making extraordinary claims that cut in the same direction as their bias, as they’ve demonstrated a willingness to drop their journalistic standards in the extraordinary circumstances of the 7 October attacks.
      However, I do see a difference between these two missteps. Following the publication of that WaPo article, use of the Hannibal Directive on 7 October has been confirmed by Al Jazeera and Haaretz reporting, lending some credence to EI’s claims. I would not use EI to justify putting the claim that most of the Israelis killed were killed by friendly fire, but they are correct to say that significant aspects of the attack remain unexplained in the absence of an independent investigation, which Israel has prevented. The position that EI’s claims are a conspiracy theory is itself a partisan claim for which there is a shrinking body of evidence. JP’s claims of beheaded babies on the other hand have been thoroughly debunked and will almost certainly stay that way. If anything, JP’s error is more egregious. EI’s position may yet be proven true or debunked by future evidence. Unbandito (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      OK. While I don't agree with most of your comment, I agree that the Jerusalem Post should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims in the direction of its bias. That's my understanding of WP:GREL and the source can still be added to RSP as generally reliable with such a note about what its biases are. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I don’t necessarily disagree with that, though I wouldn’t rank JP as option 1 given the reasons others have provided here related to their unwillingness to issue corrections and their lying about verifying information they reported. I think JP should be regarded as one of many sources that we triangulate with others to reach the closest approximation of the truth. Consequently, I think any positive ranking of JP would warrant a re-evaluation of other partisan sources of the opposite persuasion (like EI) to ensure they are being assessed consistently. Unbandito (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Huh? EI is GUNREL. EI is not the equal and opposite of JPost. Andre🚐 20:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      That’s a circular argument. The previous designation of EI is not itself evidence that the designation is accurate. I’m suggesting that the evidence brought forth here about JP should cause us to reassess EI. If JP is not considered GUNREL, EI probably shouldn’t be. I’m going to leave it at that to avoid going further off topic. Unbandito (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I think your argument conflates bias with reliability. EI should and is not reliable for facts, and is also biased. JPost is generally reliable for facts, and also has a bias. Andre🚐 22:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      You're welcome to do so, if you believe whatever consensus is reached at this discussion is contradictory to the previous one. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      If you push misinformation like "children weren't beheaded" (as various articles do now), there's no end to how deep you'll go. See Haaretz ("the evidence of extreme cruelty perpetrated by Hamas terrorists is unendurable even for people inured to death - including confirmation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s description of beheaded babies"), Sky News and The Media Line; and of course, there's the quite reliable Jerusalem Post itself, and frequently repeated confirmations by the US President. Here's first-hand testimony from Qanta Ahmed ("I Saw the Children Hamas Beheaded With My Own Eyes"). Deprecating sources for publishing accurate, reliable information while keeping sources that have pushed misinformation... Yeesh. --Yair rand (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      It is not accurate & I would request you not repeat misinformation. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Likewise, I would ask that you (and ideally Wikipedia articles) not repeat misinformation. The difference is that, as reliable sources have made clear, I am not the one peddling falsities. --Yair rand (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      For those who want some truth on this issue: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. TLDR: no public evidence of the "40 beheaded babies" claim, or that Hamas beheaded any babies; coroners report that recovered headless corpses, including some of children, but they couldn't determine how those corpses lost their heads, e.g. because they were cut off with a knife, or because they were blown off in an RPG explosion. Lots of media sources all over the world got this wrong, but most of the most reliable ones just republished the claims without speaking to their veracity. Levivich (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      The Jerusalem Post did not claim there were "40 beheaded babies". Their actual claim about beheaded children (which Huldra is using as evidence that Jerusalem Post is unreliable) was, in fact, accurate. --Yair rand (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      No, that isnt true at all. JPost still says that there are verified photos of beheaded babies. There never was and there still is not. nableezy - 21:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      FTR, that's this JP article, btw, still up, no corrections issued AFAIK. "The Jerusalem Post can now confirm based on verified photos of the bodies that the reports of babies being burnt and decapitated in Hamas's assault on Kfar Aza are correct." The five fact checkers I linked above -- PolitiFact, FactCheck, IPSO, Le Monde, and WaPo -- all say these claims are unverified or unfounded. Levivich (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      They did. Here, for example, they quote a UK former MP as saying "The forty beheaded babies has been downscaled to one dead baby", and then JPost follows that quote by writing, in JPost's own voice, "Testimonies from the survivors and recordings taken from Hamas have proven the atrocities that occurred during Hamas’s October 7 invasion of Israeli territory." This is saying that the "40 beheaded babies" was "proven." Here, in an op-ed they ran, "But Israeli troops are not ... kidnapping babies or beheading them ...", which implies that Hamas are doing that. Levivich (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Option 1. The fourth Jewish source at RSN in recent memory. I'll repeat that it's bizarre that when the previous RfC on an Israeli or Jewish source closes, a new one quickly begins. Hezbollah runs Lebanon and no other publication was previously tricked by a deepfake student. The decapitated babies story is false but was widely picked up by the Western media at the time. As OP said about an Arab source: All medias have biases, but that doesn't necessarily affect general reliability, unless it has been consistently false or misleading; Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Sources do not have religions so there is no such thing as a "Jewish source." This is a bizzare framing of events that shifts the focus away from the Jerusalem Post's misinformation.
    Yes, as I previously mentioned, biases do not affect reliability; but as demonstrated above, the Jerusalem Post is both biased and unreliable. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If editors are only banning sources aligned with one viewpoint, this can skew the POV of entire topic areas. This occurs at RSN because we examine sources in isolation. I'm framing the discussion in this way because only sources with a Jewish or Zionist or pro-Israel viewpoint are being declared unreliable in recent months and I believe that is negatively affecting the Israel and Palestine topic area.
    Specifically, you haven't shown the Jerusalem Post is "consistently false". You've shown they were fooled by deepfake technology in 2020 when deepfakes were new. You've shown they reported on a decapitated babies story most Western media outlets also reported on. You've also shown they retract false stories. Finally, your biggest point is that they call the Lebanese Health Ministry "Hezbollah-run" when the government of Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah, and many hospitals in Southern Lebanon are run by Hezbollah social services.[13]
    In this topic area, where most media sources blamed Israel for bombing Al-Ahli Arab Hospital and then immediately had to retract, some level of mistakes are tolerable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The government of Lebanon is not controlled by Hezbollah, they are a part of a coalition government and members of that party hold the ministries of public works and labor. The public health ministry is headed by a member of the Future Movement, a Sunni party, not Hezbollah. Your claim about "only sources with a Jewish or Zionist or pro-Israel viewpoint are being declared unreliable in recent months" ignores a number of sources that have been deemed unreliable that are not any of those things, and the conflation of Jewish and Zionist if made by a non-Zionist would draw outrage for antisemitism. But Al Mayadeen was deprecated, Anadolu Agency GUNREL, CounterPunch GUNREL, The Cradle deprecated, The Electronic Intifada GUNREL, The Grayzone deprecated, Mondoweiss other considerations (you opened that arguing for deprecation), Press TV deprecated. The claim that "Jewish sources" are being targeted is absurd. If anything, your history in these discussions show that you consistently oppose sources that are not pro-Zionist, and repeatedly attempt to deflect in discussions about sources that are pro-Zionist by claiming it is an attack on "Jewish sources". It be great if that stopped. nableezy - 15:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Nableezy: You said yourself Hezbollah is part of the government. They also have an effective veto power in Lebanese politics and have more power than you acknowledge, including providing basic services in areas Israel is bombing. [14] The Jerusalem Post is being hyperbolically biased in a way that is impossible to cite on Wikipedia. We should apply the same standard we apply to all sources. If Mondoweiss is going to be Option 2, I can live with that so long as the standards are consistently applied.
    Specifically, the standard for deprecation we've developed as Wikipedia editors that we should focus on how a source is used in articles. In the cases of Mondoweiss, I advocated for deprecation and was proven wrong because there wasn't the track record of demonstrable harm that deprecation would prevent, as well as a focus on opinion pieces. The most I could show was that it promoted October 7th denialism. The Jerusalem Post has not met that standard because "Hezbollah-run health ministry" is arguably true and isn't citable onwiki.
    The reason why I mention the Jerusalem Post is both Jewish and Zionist is that it regularly covers Jewish issues outside of Israel in the diaspora section.
    None of the double standard criticism applies to you. I largely agree with your reasoning that the Jerusalem Post is worse than the Times of Israel/Haaretz (those are the best Israeli newspapers). I disagree mainly because WP:MREL doesn't mean "mostly reliable source", it means marginally reliable. Without clear delineation of when it is reliable/unreliable, editors will try to mass-remove the Jerusalem Post from articles if they think it's being used in an inappropriate context (like BLPs for Mondoweiss). A WP:GREL outcome would not mean you're obligated to accept it for all statements of fact, but that it's "mostly reliable" as you've said.
    What I'm pointing out is since April, we've had RfCs on the ADL+Jewish Chronicle+Jerusalem Post, and there are editors that take different positions on the Jerusalem Post in different discussions.
    I would oppose the introduction of "Hezbollah-run health ministry" to articles especially given the precedent set at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier—it's technically true but doesn't have much context. That being said, nobody has seriously proposed to use that qualifier and I don't see how biased language makes the Jerusalem Post unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No, it is technically not true, it is not arguably true in any way. Hezbollah does not run the health ministry in Lebanon, full stop. I didnt vote to deprecate. I only objected to your repeated claims of targeting "Jewish sources" which is demonstrably untrue. And I think that diversion is both untrue and, to be honest, outrageous in that it implicitly claims a racist motivation in questioning any of these sources reliability. If somebody is attacking a source because it is a "Jewish source" that should be block worthy. But as far as I can tell nobody is, making the accusation itself what is block worthy. nableezy - 17:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's possible to have unconscious bias and that is not a blockworthy offence. Arguing that there is systemic bias in our treatment of sources is not an accusation of deliberately racist motivations on the part of individual editors. It is effectively impossible to counter systemic bias if I am not allowed to acknowledge its existence.
    What I originally said still stands: the pattern of examining sources in isolation at WP:RSN is causing systemic bias issues because we cannot determine if we are treating sources differently depending on their affiliation.
    Examining sources by contextualizing them with other sources will more effectively evaluate the reliability of the Jerusalem Post by reducing the impact of bias.
    In this case, I contrasted with Al-Jazeera and asked whether the Jerusalem Post has met the consistently false or misleading standard applied there. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There is no such thing either; Haaretz is an Israeli Jewish-owned RS publication that is highly critical of Israel, even critical of the Jerusalem Post, so this argument does not hold to scrutiny. Being "pro-Israel" is not opposed to being critical of Israel; on the contrary, many pro-Israel sources are highly critical of Israel's policies because they care about Israel. As for the decapitated babies debunked claim, the difference is that unlike the Jerusalem Post, western media did not claim to see evidence for this in their reporting. As for the claim about ministry being Hezbollah-run, this is an extraordinary claim and a personal opinion that is not supported by any reliable source. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    And the Jerusalem Post is highly critical of Haaretz[15], a publication whose owner said Israel imposes apartheid, that Hamas is full of freedom fighters, and that Israel should be sanctioned to bring about a Palestinian state. Haaretz is not a replacement for the Jerusalem Post, which is the main right-wing newspaper in Israel. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Great, then clearly, conflicting editorial policies and opinions of newspapers have nothing to do with religion nor ethnicity, so we can move on from that argument. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1 Seems like a reliable source and was recently RFC'd/discussed. No source is ever perfect and so all things considered, this is reasonable. Chess makes a good point that after a failed RFC against similar sources another pops up. Seems like agenda driven basis to depreciate such sources at any cost. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1/2 per Nableezy and North8000. All sources on this topic are problematic and should be used with caution and this is somewhere below the strongest sources but nowhere near the worst usable sources, so I would treat it similarly to Palestine Chronicle (maybe a little better given it does more of its own reporting). Re the specific charges, "Hezbollah-run" is not that big a deal; the babies story is problematic but we don't know the full truth; the doll story shows reason for caution but was corrected; the deepfake story is trivial (several publications were similarly taken in and JP removed it). We need to be consistent in our treatment of I/P sources, and exercise skepticism and triangulation with all of them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I just want to say about "the doll story" that I think it shows more than just a reason to be cautious, as what they said about faulty sourcing for their reason for retracting does not stand up. The only source in the story was an unverified tweet claiming it was a doll. That to me shows a willingness to promote unverified material as propaganda. This was not the case of an actual source giving the JPost wrong information, this was them having such a low standard that some guy with 1100 twitter followers was treated as an authoritative source to make outlandish claims and present them as fact. Yes they took it down after it was widely mocked for putting out a false story, with proof of the lie having been offered by the photojournalist who had taken the photo. I simply do not trust them to have verified claims that other stronger sources have not, which is what pushes it in to option 2 territory for me. nableezy - 19:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1 generally and 2 for AI/IP topic area there is a fair bit of nationalistic tub thumping/the idea that every single Palestinian is a terrorist for this source so the AI/IP stuff should be treated with some caution but otherwise I would give the benefit of the doubt.Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Do you have sources to back up the claim that the Jerusalem Post promoted the idea that every single Palestinian is a terrorist? This is unsubstantiated at the moment. And why would publishing an opinion along those lines make the Jerusalem Post less reliable?
      For context, the WP:GREL Al-Jazeera has published opinion pieces directly saying "All Zionist roads lead to genocide".[16] Should Al-Jazeera also be WP:MREL on Israel and Palestine?
      Al-Jazeera's opinion editors have described Zionism, the belief that Israel should exist, as an inherently genocidal ideology. This is similar to describing the Palestinian identity as inherently terroristic.
      From my understanding after I was shot down at the Mondoweiss RfC, extreme opinions aren't what makes a source unreliable. Mondoweiss being unable to separate advocacy from news is what contributed to its WP:MREL status. Likewise, Al-Jazeera is WP:GREL because it can separate advocacy pieces into an opinion section.
      My understanding is that the Jerusalem Post would have to consistently perform advocacy in its actual news for its WP:POV to negatively affect its reliability. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Don't see what AJ or Mondoweiss have to do with the JP. https://www.jpost.com/tags/palestinian-terrorism, horses mouth. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Declaring Israeli sources unreliable on Israel or Palestine based on standards Arab sources aren't held to will bias the topic area.
      Tagging articles as "Palestinian terrorism" is just pointing out that some acts of terrorism are committed by terrorism. I'm also unsure how an article tag would be cited beyond calling specific act of terrorism Palestinian. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Declaring Israeli sources unreliable on Israel or Palestine based on standards Arab sources aren't held to will bias the topic area. Instead of repeating this as if that will somehow make the accusation more credible (it doesn't, its just annoying), make your case in an appropriate place (which isn't in this discussion).
      When Israel was doing its nearly 2 year long so called operation breakwater, and arresting Palestinians in the WB every night, JP would report it next day as "x Palestinian terrorists arrested" whether they were or were not terrorists. Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      You haven't provided any links to specific stories falsely claiming that a Palestinian is a terrorist. That was my original ask, and if you can't provide evidence there's no use pressing further.
      Likewise, if you're not going to refute the double standard, I don't see the point of repeating myself. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      You are repeating yourself. Selfstudier (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I think it's worth discouraging reproduction of JP's stylistic bias, particularly the labelling of people as terrorists, as a special consideration on its reliability. Unbandito (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I would support this. The term "terrorist" should be substantiated by other sources (as a general rule). Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1 generally, 2 for AI/IP, same reasoning as SelfStudier honestly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1, per Chess. To respond to Makeandtoss, being Jewish is not solely about religion, it’s just one aspect of Jewish identity, and most Jews are secular and see their Jewishness as ethnicity/nationality/culture. I also agree that there has been a recent surge in attempts to discredit Jewish sources without real evidence, which is really troubling. HaOfa (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 2 I tend to evaluate depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except Option 2 to say that you cannot skip the context of what article content is involved. I would lean strongly towards RS from the goodnesses of it being a well-established reputable outfit with local expertise and that they have made retractions and corrections when in error - and basically everyone makes an error sometime so the handling is important - and that WP has generally regarded it as a RS to use in prior RSN. I would tend to view it as RS with POV to use in the context of the current hot war, but then I think that *all* sources should be taken as POV in the context of the current hot war. (London Times, Sydney Morning Herald, The Globe and Mail ... *all* sources.) Sort of what SelfStudier said. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1 per Andrevan and Chess. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1 - agree that all four are issues, but JPost is one of the oldest and largest Israeli newspapers, and we're lacking an argument for why this is qualitatively or quantitatively worse than incidents at any other major publication. The fake persona seems less severe than fake stories, which many reputable publications have had at some point - see e.g. Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke, Johann Hari. — xDanielx T/C\R 20:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1, though I could maybe be convinced toward 2 if a stronger case is presented. The decapitated babies story was a massive whiff, but I haven’t seen a pattern of outright falsified reporting otherwise. JPost certainly has a right-wing/nationalist perspective, which makes me rather uncomfortable, but as established in WP policy, bias is (unfortunately, in my view) not unreliability. The Kip (contribs) 19:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Wholesale opposed to 3/4, however. In both this topic area and others, I’ve seen sources currently marked GREL/MREL get away with far worse than what the opener notes - unless a stronger case is made, deprecation is beyond extreme here. The Kip (contribs) 19:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Important to note that unlike other news sources that reported on the decapitated babies claim, the Jerusalem Post was unique in saying that it had verified the evidence itself, so this is a major red flag and a different story. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Again, while awful, one severely problematic piece does not amount to the pattern of lies and/or inaccuracies required for outright GUNREL/deprecation - if it did, most of the sources we use on this site would be in that grouping. The rest of the case you’ve made effectively boils down to bias and/or items they ultimately retracted. The Kip (contribs) 05:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 2/3 for Israel-Palestine, Option 1 in general. - As others have noted the Jerusalem Post is clearly biased, but I don't think that necessarily means it's unreliable. Outside of the Israel-Palestine area it may well be generally reliable. The problem is that it veers away from mere bias into making incredibly inflammatory false claims that are widely shared and never corrected. The case of "Photos of babies being burnt, decapitated confirmed" stands out in particular. They achieved almost 16 million views with this tweet and never retracted it. The article continues to be cited, sometimes by people with far-reaching influence. Detailed investigations by Haaretz, LeMonde and others continue to show that the claims the Jerusalem Post made were false, but as I write this JP has yet to retract or correct the story.

      The other case was the claim about a Palestinian baby who was killed being a doll. An incredibly inflammatory claim, widespread reach, continuing to be repeated and adding to the Pallywood myth. The BBC and others showed this to be false. The JP did eventually retract the story, however the author of the piece Danielle Greyman-Kennard continues to work for them to this day as their "Breaking News Writer and Editor". The same is true of the "Photos..." piece, where the author continued to work for the JP for many months afterwards.

      This is what makes the Jerusalem Post's coverage of Israel-Palestine stand apart from reliable sources in this topic area. Yes, they may also be biased (i.e. the Times of Israel) but they did not publish outright disinformation as verified reporting to millions of readers, then subsequently refuse to retract or correct it, let alone take action against the responsible author, when proven false by RS. Even when they do issue a retraction, the author in question remains an editor in good standing.

      These are two especially high profile cases, but disinformation and outright falsehoods find their way into all of their output in this subject area. They wrote about Sinwar's wife having a 32,000 dollar Birkin bag - contrast this coverage with how Haaretz reported it, noting that many pointed out that the claim about the bag was in fact false (https://archive.ph/G3aAM)). This marks the difference between a reliable source in this topic area, and an unreliable tabloid outlet.

      So, again, option 2/3 for Israel-Palestine. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Re the claim about the bag was in fact false, you linked to Haaretz, but they themselves don't really say it was false; they're just quoting speculation from random Twitter users. JPost is similarly quoting speculation in the other direction, reflecting their opposite biases. Ynetnews covers both sides with some non-Twitter sources, though those pointing out Hermes' relationship-driven sales model seem to ignore the second-hand market. Anyway JPost doesn't exactly take a view on the matter themselves, except in the WP:HEADLINE which we wouldn't use. — xDanielx T/C\R 20:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      @XDanielx JPost repeated the claim as fact in the headline and published POV as if it were fact in the article, it also published a piece the following day stating it as fact that she was "carrying a luxury Hermès Birkin handbag worth approximately $32,000". This is institutional for the JP, and it goes beyond mere bias that we see with other outlets. It's a systemic disregard for verifiable facts and accuracy in pursuit of political aims. They do this for everything in this topic area, from a handbag to "Photos of babies being burnt, decapitated confirmed" and "Al Jazeera posts blurred doll, claims it to be a dead Palestinian baby". As many have pointed out, even when shown to be platforming misinformation (with serious consequences!) they take no actions to prevent it and continue to employ and publish the people responsible. If the initial article about the handbag was similarly quoting speculation in the other direction, they almost immediately doubled down, so they appear to be perfectly willing to take speculation as verified fact. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I think you need to have third party sources discussing the JPosts issues rather than trying to build a case yourself. The reason I think the babies story is so egregious is the shoddy sourcing policy at play and it was brought up by other sources as amplifying propaganda. For example in an article on false claims in the war the BBC singles out JPost among media organizations for amplifying such a false claim. Everything else it talks about is social media, and when a newspaper is being compared to twitter for spreading false information, that is something to take note of. nableezy - 13:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      The Forward has investigated and published why JPost is unreliable. It's pretty clear that it's a pay-to-publish model and has been since 2004. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      That source points out the Post denied the allegations. And adds that: Its disclosure for paid articles comes in a brief italicized line at the bottom of these posts: “This article was written in a cooperation with” and the advertiser’s name. So unless you see something with "sponsored content," it isn't, so your statement as a broad generalization about JPost is inaccurate per your own given source (which is reliable) Andre🚐 19:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      That source points out the Post denied the allegations. WP:MANDY

      The brief italicized line is not what I was referring, nor is it is enough for JPost to just do that and call it a day. There are examples in the article of how Haaretz and The Forward do sponsored content which clearly show JPost is relying on a dark pattern to fool the reader.

      I was referring to Elli Wohlgelernter, who is the night editor, saying he was uncomfortable with the fact that such sponsored content was not always labeled to differentiate it for readers from journalism free of influence by advertisers. He is saying there is sponsored content that is not marked as sponsored at all. Wohlgelernter is a journalist with 50+ years of experience and has worked with Haaretz, the Times of Israel, and numerous US-based outlets and I encourage you to reflect on what it means when someone like that makes such a claim unequivocally of the outlet they have insider knowledge about. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      That's an assumption not given in the voice of the Forward. They were concerned about sponsored content blending in, but it points out that all sponsored content is labeled as such, just might be hard to distinguish due to, everything else about these articles — the headlines, bylines, font and formatting — appears identical to articles on the website that are not advertisements, and nowhere does this disclaimer about “cooperation” refer to these sponsored posts as advertisements. These articles, many written by a reporter who also writes non-sponsored articles for the Post, are interspersed with normal news articles throughout its website. The former editor, Katz said: “In line with my journalistic values, ethics and principles all sponsored content was labeled as such during my tenure as editor in chief.” Andre🚐 20:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      There's no assumption given I'm quoting exactly what is written. The section you're referring to is called Content ‘in collaboration’ with advertisers that comes 2 sections later. More simply:
      1. The first section cites Wohlgelernter making a concrete claim that sponsored content is not always labelled.
      2. The 3rd section refers to diluted labelling for the subset of cases when sponsored content is labelled.
      Are you denying the first section where Wohlgelernter is making a concrete claim? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I was pointing out that the part you quoted was after what "Wohlgelernter said," not in the Forward's factual voice. That isn't clear from your message, but is attributed to him. So yes, he did concretely state that, but the Forward didn't say that, so the assumption is that he is correct specifically versus what the publisher and editor claimed and what the Forward's reporter confirmed. It would be easy to see how the practice was problematic to him and also is the practice described in the section, since Ashkenazi, the publisher, denied the statement made by Wohlgelernter. The assumption is that Wohlgelernter saw something beyond what the Forward confirmed. The Forward describes the practice which I quoted previously, and it's clear how that could also be what Wohlgelernter was describing, and he just exaggerated slightly or was inexact in his phrasing, or the journalist overstated what he said or meant when transcribing the interview or editing the story. This happens commonly with journalists. I remember speaking once to a journalist years ago who transformed my term "basement" into "attic." A minor difference to the meaning of the story and I never corrected it - journalist is no longer with that outlet either - but basement and attic are obviously opposites. Andre🚐 21:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      The Forward, or any reputable news outlet for that matter, will use their own voice where they can directly confirm facts. When they work with sources making a claim that is insider information and cannot be directly verified, they will not use their own voice and will instead clearly attribute the claim to the source (after having vetted their source per their editorial standards of course).

      In such cases, the reader must evaluate the claim being made by referencing against the biases and motivations of the source. In this case, the source is a journalist with half a century of experience and has a leadership position in JPost.

      I think the chances of Wohlgelernter exaggerating slightly or Wohlgelernter being inexact in his phrasing is vanishingly tiny. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 2 - especially about palestinians. I view the Daily Telegraph as having an even worse bias on the war and it is a 1. It really does need a check before accepting what it says as true rather than just passing it off as bias. NadVolum (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1. The examples provided by u:Makeandtoss do not prove the lack of reliability. #3 and #4 have been retracted which is a positive sign. The characterisation as "Hezbollah-run" is a matter of judgement and degree, while Hezbollah doesn't have this portfolio it is a dominant force in Lebanese politics and the largest party in the ruling coalition. As to #2, a correction would probably be in order (infants were killed but not beheaded) but I don't think we should re-classify the source based on just this issue. Alaexis¿question? 23:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1. No real concerns. Strong editorial policy, paper of record, good reputation. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1 per Chess, Alaexis, and others. I'm not seeing a sustained pattern of factual errors or falsehoods that would justify a downgrade. Astaire (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 4 for AI/IP and Option 3 in general. The examples highlighted by Makeandtoss as well as Smallangryplanet are damning evidence of the lack of editorial standards and a decision to unabashedly spread misinformation even when other reputable sources have published rebuttals and debunked false claims.

      I reject the assertion that JP should be rated as a 1 because some other source is also rated as a 1. Can the proponents who make this argument point out the policy that says this is acceptable? From WP:REPUTABLE: Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. JP has demonstrated that it has parted ways with fact-checking and accuracy.

      The Forward has published a detailed investigation into why JP's standards have plummeted. Summarizing:
    1. The JP engages in pay-to-publish and has been doing so since 2004. The night editor, Wohlgelernter, has said that sponsored posts are not always marked as such and there's no way to tell what is independent reporting and what is a sponsored post.
    2. The editor, Avi Mayer, resigned because the owner, Eli Azur, kept pressuring more sponsored content and practices that go against journalistic ethics.
    3. What's even more horrifying is that Avi Mayer's background is of being a spokesperson for the IDF. He's an influencer for Israel and shares pro-Israel posts on social media. ... He retained a similar tone on social media while editor, using rhetoric unusual for the leader of a mainstream newspaper: “Good luck being unemployed,” he said to one university student who had blamed Israel for the Oct. 7 attack, while calling for another student to be fired. The demands of the JP's owners were so extreme that a pro-Israel military hawk with no background in journalism felt icky. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Regarding publishing paid content as news pieces, they say later in the article in their own voice that it's hard to distinguish between news articles, rather than there being no distinction at all. I'm not sure what to make of it - maybe these are two separate issues, or maybe they are more sure in one than the other.
      Btw they've appointed a new editor who is apparently an experienced journalist [17], hopefully this will improve the situation. Alaexis¿question? 21:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Btw they've appointed a new editor ... hopefully this will improve the situation - Yes, I hope so too and look forward to a survey for updating their rating from 4 to 1 when we have evidence of that.

      they say later in the article in their own voice that it's hard to distinguish between news articles, rather than there being no distinction at all - @Andrevan had this misunderstanding as well, so I'm copying my comment from that thread here:
      1. The first section cites Wohlgelernter making a concrete claim that sponsored content is not always labelled.
      2. The 3rd section refers to diluted labelling for the subset of cases when sponsored content is labelled.

      Wohlgelernter is a journalist with 50+ years of experience and has worked with Haaretz, The Times of Israel, and various other US news organizations. I think we can safely accept that Wohlgelernter knows a thing or two about journalistic integrity and is not just a random commenter. You're right that the 3rd section is where The Forward is using their own voice, but that is simply because that part can be independently corroborated by them. Wohlgelernter's statement must be directly ascribed to him by The Forward since that's how reporting works.

      Are you suggesting we discount Wohlgelernter's testimony altogether? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I didn't misunderstand it, I would submit that you are somewhat misframing it. The 3rd section is what the Forward was able to confirm. The Forward doesn't corroborate the statement made by Wohlgelernter, so it is attributed to him, and not a flat fact. It could simply be a turn of phrase or an exaggeration of what he meant. Andre🚐 21:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      The claim that Wohlgelernter is exaggerating is extraordinary and I don't see evidence to support that. He's a highly experienced journalist who's in a leadership position at JPost and is speaking to an external news organization. I think it's safe to assume that he has received media training and knows how to talk to journalists without putting his foot in his mouth. :) It's also a safe bet that he's interested in journalistic integrity and wants to improve the JPost.

      Wohlgelernter's testimony as well as The Forward's section is evidence that JPost is firmly in the pay-to-publish side of the landscape. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Not at all. As the article explains, there are situations where there are labelled pay-to-publish sections. The Forward doesn't confirm any examples of pay-to-publish that wasn't labelled. Also, these are limited to the tenure of Meyer. Andre🚐 22:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Also, these are limited to the tenure of Meyer - How do you infer this? The article says clearly:

      Those tensions boiled over Wednesday when Avi Mayer left as editor of the Post. Mayer, whose background was in public relations, had been hired in April, and several of the current and former employees say he struggled to lead the newsroom. But they say mounting commercial pressure from Azur and Ashkenazi put Mayer in an impossible position.

      If anything, the situation is likely to be worse now. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Once again you're making assumptions that are not in evidence. The article only details concerns under Meyer. Katz specifies that he did not have this issue. Andre🚐 22:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Please back up your claim with evidence instead of just rephrasing it. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I already quoted the quote from Katz above. The article only details concerns under Mayer: Mayer, 39, was a controversial choice to lead the Post...criticized the quality of the Post’s journalism under Mayer... Mayer apologized.... Yaakov Katz, the editor before Mayer, frequently pushed back on management’s efforts to expand the amount of sponsored content in the Post and eliminate or obscure disclosures that they were advertisements. Andre🚐 23:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Your second point (and by extension your third point about Mayer "feeling icky") is not supported by the article, which says It is unclear what may have precipitated Mayer’s departure this week. There is no proof that he "resigned because" of anything. Astaire (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      This is a WP:SPA, by the way. After reaching 500/30 the editor switched entirely to Israel-Palestine. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      WP:AGF and don't WP:BITE; Not even their last 50 contributions are exclusively I-P. There's nothing inherently unusual about wanting to get involved in one of the most important current events topics of the day once you earn the right to do so. You should focus on the well researched and reasoned arguments they presented here. Unbandito (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I'm avoiding tagging with Template:spa because more context is needed, but yes, all 50 of CoolAndUniqueUsername's recent contribs are about Israel and/or Palestine. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Evidence free WP:ASPERSIONS, suggest they be struck. Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      This is certainly false: [18] [19] [20] [21]. --JBL (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Code Pink is pretty focused on I/P. Their homepage is currently focused on a I/P driven Netflix boycott, and their list of issues places "justice for Palestine" first. The first page of their blog lists 9 articles, and 7 of them are in the Palestine category. The article is XC-protected because of its relation to the topic area. — xDanielx T/C\R 02:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      @XDanielx Code Pink is an anti-war organization in general & with how Palestine has been in the public eye lately, they will inherently be writing more on the subject. The article also has several contentious topic warnings other then the Arab–Israeli conflict including post-1992 politics of the US, gender-related disputes, & Uyghurs/ Uyghur genocide.
      So, as @CoolAndUniqueUsername's edits on the page were unrelated to Israel or Palestine, the accusation remains false. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      That's a stretch... editing Code Pink does seem related. Andre🚐 03:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I don't agree that it's a stretch, but for arguments sake let's say their edits to Code Pink were related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.
      They haven't edited since the 4th, so you can see their latest 50 edits when the accusation was made. I don't think Criticism of Amazon's environmental impact or Haitian independence debt are at all related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.
      I hope we can now shelve this accusation as false & focus on the Jerusalem Post as the topic at hand. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 3 for Israel-Palestine I don't know about their coverage outside the conflict, but in their coverage of the war, they showed incompetance, publishing disinformation, most famously, those of baby decapitations. FunLater (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Reuters published almost the same information on photos shown to Blinken. This is Reuters from 10/12, and this is the JPost from 10/12. Also ABC and many other outlets. The debunked story of 40 decapitated babies from Kfar Aza is a completely different issue from the photos shown to Blinked with murdered babies. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      That isnt anywhere close to the same. The Jerusalem Post said The Jerusalem Post can now confirm based on verified photos of the bodies that the reports of babies being burnt and decapitated in Hamas's assault on Kfar Aza are correct. No part of that was true, they did not verify any photos of any decapitated babies because there were none. There were a total of 2 babies that were killed on October 7 (TOI, Haaretz for example, with Haaretz saying Ten-month-old Mila Cohen was murdered in the massacre, along with the baby still in the womb of her mother who died after her mother was shot on the way to hospital. The police have no evidence showing that other babies were killed.). The Jerusalem Post claimed (and still claims!) to have verified something that does not exist. Reuters did not. nableezy - 17:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 3 for the Israel-Palestine conflict, broadly defined. It's clear from the above discussion and from JP's history of credulously publishing false information regarding the genocide in Palestine that it is inappropriate for use on that specific topic - it may be perfectly reliable outside the context of that conflict. However, considering the increasngly global character of the conflict, I'd think twice before using JP for pretty much any matter of international relations. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Why would you vote "broadly defined" if your issues are specific to the genocide? Is the Jerusalem Post wholly unreliable for domestic politics? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      You should note that I was saying that, as the genocide has extended into a broadly international matter, that its coverage of foreign affairs was suspect - not domestic politics. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Your vote is Option 3 for Israel-Palestine, broadly defined, which means a total ban of the source on anything related to Israel or Palestine. If you write "broadly defined" that includes domestic politics. If you want to amend your !vote to refer to the "Israel-Palestine conflict broadly defined" that'd be another issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I will make that change. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1 with the exception of localized and mostly minor issues, there is no broad pattern of unreliability, and the JPost represents a significant center-right perspective in Israeli politics. The source is broadly respected and used by others, and despite being arguably worse than some other Israeli sources, I see no indication of anything other than general reliability in all topic areas. FortunateSons (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 2 for Israel/Palestine, Option 1 elsewhere. While it is mostly reliable, numerous errors made by the outlet in this war are of a more egregious nature (e.g. claiming to have seen footage of something that did not happen) and occur more frequently than other "involved" media outlets, which IMO merits some caution. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 3 for Israel-Palestine, otherwise a weak Option 1 - Besides incidents like calling a dead baby a doll & the 40 decapitated babies (of which there still remains an article saying they "can now confirm based on verified photos of the bodies that the reports of babies being burnt and decapitated in Hamas's assault on Kfar Aza are correct."). They are also willing to use the racist slur of "pallywood". Recently, they've also published an article citing a twitter account "OSINTdefender", known to spread false information. I don't think an organization like this should be considered much of a reliable source for contentious topics in general, but especially not for WP:PIA - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Re OSINTdefender, pretty much all investigative journalists look at footage from social media. Some might summarize the footage in prose, or re-publish it without attribution, but ultimately it's still coming from random social media users. The more reliable orgs will geolocate or otherwise verify that the footage represents what was claimed. Do you have any evidence that such diligence was not done by JPost? — xDanielx T/C\R 02:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      They shared the description & videos directly from a misinformation account with no caveats. The work that would be necessary to independently verify the information would require them to either track down where the unreliable account got their info from or to find a reliable source to corroborate, both options negate the need for quoting an unreliable source.
      So no, there's no reason to believe they did their due-diligence here, otherwise they would've quoted a reliable source to begin with. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      This is just how modern investigative journalism works. Take NBC's article about the same event for example, which is based on "footage circulating on social media". Everyone covering such conflicts is using social media footage, whether they clearly acknowledge it or not. There are varying levels of due diligence, but there's no evidence that due diligence was lacking in the JPost example. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Just to note that the article doesn’t cite osintdefender. It embeds a tweet from them, containing a video. This is a quite common practice now with several outlets, where opinionated or vivid tweets are embedded in otherwise reliable articles. We wouldn’t cite the tweet if we were citing the article, so it doesn’t strongly affect reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Option 2/3, and IMO, not just for I-P but for everything. It seems since 2004, the JPost does not enjoy a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy:
    • 2009: Kevin Jon Heller writes of a JPost editorial, "the editorial contains more basic factual errors than any editorial I have ever read" [22] and, later, "No Correction by the Jerusalem Post" [23]
    • 2019: "Jerusalem Post article makes premature claim on 'first complete cure for cancer', overstates research significance" according to WP:IFCN fact checker [24]
    • 2020 COVID article found "misleading" also by WP:IFCN fact checker [25]
    • 2020: "Jerusalem Post took government money to publish anti-BDS special", +972 [26]
    • 2023: the Forward article about pay-to-play discussed by others above [27]
    And that's without getting into the 2023-2024 decapitated babies stuff (also discussed by others above). It reminds me of the New York Post, just not "on the level," and there plenty of much better Israeli journalism to draw upon. Levivich (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    2009 is pretty far back, and it's also about an WP:RSEDITORIAL which we wouldn't use except with attribution anyway.
    The cancer thing was JPost quoting a third party. Their "Jerusalem Post article makes premature claim" headline was misleading, JPost themselves made no such claim.
    The government funding thing could be a bias concern (not clearly/directly related to reliability), though since it's +972 it's hard to trust them to relay facts plainly without a spin.
    The Forward piece misleads by burying the fact that sponsored content is labeled as such by JPost. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1, maybe 2, but oppose 3/4: Yes, it is biased but sources can be both reliable and biased. I do not see any pattern in their reporting that indicates they repeatedly publish false information. Some stories mentioned above are certainly concerning, but I do not see any indication this is a common occurrence. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 05:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 2. For everyday matters, JP is reliable enough, but JP has several faults that demand caution. One (shared by most Israeli outlets) is that they often publish IDF claims uncritically as fact, contrary to their journalistic duty to attribute and investigate. Another fault is that they sometimes publish op-eds labeled as news when they are clearly opinion. We don't usually label individual journalists as unreliable, but if we were going to do that I'd specify a clear "option 4" for a few of JP's writers. Zerotalk 06:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1. Not sure whether to laugh or cry? Maybe both. There has been a steady campaign to remove every source that is remotely pro-Israel as a reliable one. If Wikipedia's neutrality and independence was at the heart of this, than Al Jazeera would be removed as a RS given the many concerns with it.MaskedSinger (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 2 for I-P conflict, Option 1 for non-controversial matters. I was appalled at what appears to be Jerusalem Post falsely accusing an author of inciting genocide. For the I-P conflict, I would apply the following test:
      • is it being cited for non-exceptional, non-contentious content? If so, it can be cited without attribution.
      • is it being cited for WP:EXCEPTIONAL or contentious content? If so, it should not be used at all. If we must use it, then we should use it with attribution. An example of this could be: a WP:GREL source makes a serious accusation against an Israeli official, and the official's rebuttal has not been quoted in any RS, then it would be appropriate to say "The Jerusalem Post reported that X was not...".VR (Please ping on reply) 23:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 4. Biased sources can be reliable. Sources that spread disinformation cannot. This is the lowest possible bar of journalistic integrity - don't maliciously fabricate information. Combefere ★ Talk 02:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1 The key consideration is whether using this source would lead to increased inaccuracy in articles.In this case, it has not beem shown. No reasonable editor would add that the Lebanese ministry of health is controlled by Hezbollah, based on a passing mention by a reporter. Also, commentary published in even the most reliable sources are not themselves deemed reliable. The final consideration is that when news media publish false stories, as they have in the current conflict, you must show that a publication is an outlier. If all major reliable news media publish the same false story, then we cannot use this to single out a specific publication. TFD (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Not all major media published the same false story, and JPost was the only one to claim to have verified something we know never existed. They also never retracted that false claim. nableezy - 17:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1 per Chess and Andrevan. I can see some concerns around IP topics which most sources in that area of the world would have. In those areas we really should treat all sources like an option 2. The idea that this should be deprecated... that seems to be very motivated thinking. Springee (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1, and subscribe to what Chess wrote as well. Reading through the RFCBEFORE, I'm surprised this was even taken here. Obvious that bias should be taken into consideration when using the source, especially for contentious claims, but that's no different to say, Al-Jazeera. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 2 generally, Option 3 Israel-Palestine conflict I find the arguments presented by @Makeandtoss, @CoolAndUniqueUsername and @Levivich to be compelling. Were there only isolated incidents of misreporting and bias, which were promptly and appropriately addressed, I would align with the view that such bias does not necessarily render a source unreliable. However, in this instance, as highlighted in the article from Forward, there exists a pervasive institutional issue that leads to routine publishing by the Jerusalem Post that mirrors the practices of outlets such as the Daily Mail or The Sun. A review of their daily output over time substantiates this observation. From sensationalized headlines to content that cites random tweets as primary sources and derives conclusions from viral social media discourse, the Jerusalem Post exhibits patterns of misreporting that have not been rectified in the manner expected from a reliable news source. Lf8u2 (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The Algemeiner article is junk comment, from a very biased source. Having watched the video in question, it actually specifically relates the contents of a video package using footage from the 7th October which the Israeli government edited for screening to opinion-formers. Jones relates that he found the footage shocking and described watching it one of the worst experiences of his life. He then relates what appears and does not appear in the video and compares this to what other commentators have said about the video. The video was released at a time when the mass killing of babies lie was still widely believed and he pointed out that the package did not contain any evidence for this, but that Israel had stated it had not included any footage of the killing of children for moral reasons. As we now know that 37 children died in the attacks, from a total of 1000 victims, the evidence for deliberate mass killing of children still does not exist. I would say that article does more to undermine Algemeiner's reliability than Jones'--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 2 for Israel-Palestine, otherwise a weak Option 1 There is quite strong evidence here of false reporting amounting to propaganda. I would not want claims about Palestinians, sourced solely to the JP to appear in our pages. However, it will on occasions be useful for providing insights on the thinking and comments of members of the Israeli establishment on Palestinians and the conflict and so I wouldn't suggest a blanket ban.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1: Generally reliable, it has been well established going back a considerable perod of time that this sources is generally reliable. Furthermore, there does seem to be a concerted effort still to get some Israeli or Jewish related publications to be deprecated as of late, and that should further be handled and dealt with separately, but caution here on anything other than Option 1: Generally reliable, should be looked at with some suspicion right now. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Jerusalem Post's subsidiary Walla's scandal

    edit

    An important point in the RFC has been missed: Jerusalem Post apparently translates and publishes articles from its subsidiary website Walla, which was essentially exposed as a Netanyahu mouthpiece. The scandal broke out in Israel a few years ago when it was revealed that Walla's then owner had agreed to air positive coverage of the Israeli premier in exchange for regulatory benefits for his other company, which morphed into the corruption trial against Netanyahu who is expected to provide his testimony in the upcoming weeks. This connection was highlighted last year when a JP article faced backlash, and the then editor-in-chief Avi Mayer, an individual whose career involved working for several powerful lobbying groups such as AIPAC, stated that: "The article in question was produced by our Hebrew-language sister publication, Walla News, and was uploaded to our website using an automated translation mechanism." Walla's employees are witnesses to Netanyahu's corruption trial, one of whom told an Israeli court that: "Netanyahu had the greatest control over the Walla website, including what the headline would be, where it would be on the home page."

    A quick look on Jerusalem Post's website shows that Walla's articles are still being extensively translated and published by the newspaper, including one just twelve hours ago: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. So are we really going to consider a publication known to propagate articles from a mouthpiece for a politician, who is on trial in Israel for corruption and about to be on trial in the ICC for war crimes, a reliable source on Wikipedia, especially for the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    There’s a couple of different issues here. Walla were accused of being a mouthpiece for Netanyahu under its previous ownership (Bezeq), 2012-20, not under JP’s ownership since 2020; (b) the scandalous recent article last November had nothing to do with the Netanyahu stuff, although speaks ill of JP if they have continued to publish automated translations from Walla without vetting them; (c) Avi Mayer’s 9 month tenure as editor in 2023 is a different issue again, which I think was discussed already in the survey above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC) (in other words, if Walla was unreliable pre-2020 this has no bearing on JP’s reliability then or now. If Walla is consistently unreliable now, then it does have bearing on JP’s reliability now. If Avi Mayer is biased, that speaks to bias in 2023 (already widely agreed in this discussion) but isn’t relevant to reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Well at least we can agree that Walla and Jerusalem Post are unreliable for 2012-2020. But still change of ownership for Walla in 2020 from Bezeq to JP or change of the editor-in-chief for JP in 2023 is not a fundamental change (JP retains its same gambling tycoon owner Eli Azur since 2004). Newspapers are institutions with deeply rooted attitudes and editorial policies and staff. JP and Walla both were still implicated in another scandal 2022-2024 of running a paid pro-Russian propaganda campaign written as part of their journalistic materials as was reported by this esteemed Israeli investigative publication: [38] Clearly, in recent memory, JP doesn’t have a record of being a reliable publication, but rather a track record in disinformation. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No we don’t “agree that Walla and Jerusalem Post are unreliable for 2012-2020”. Walla was clearly unreliable for Israeli politics in that period, but that has no bearing on JP so irrelevant to the conversation here. As far as I can see, all the evidence presented here for JP unreliability relates to the Gaza/Lebanon war since October 2023. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It has a bearing on JP's reliability because as demonstrated JP extensively uses Walla articles. As for the paid pro-Russian disinformation this dates to 2022-2024. In any case, the evidence presented shows how this institution has been void of journalistic standards for most of the past two decades. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The contention is that JP publishes and translates Walla articles - are they identified in JP as coming from the subsidiary? Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, as seen from the nine examples I referenced. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Then it's simple. Walla articles transcluded to JP should not be treated as reliable. It has no bearing, positive or negative, n JP articles that did not originate in Walla. Simonm223 (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The fact that JP publishes Walla article is an indication of overall unreliability in my opinion; coupled with the other numerous evidence presented here of unreliable reporting; but of course, you have the right to your opinion. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    There's a double standard here with this and Al Jazeera and whatever else. If editorial influence is the charge, then all those who fall foul of this should lose their status as a Reliable Source irrespective of one's personal preferences. To apply it selectively is intellectually dishonest. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/oct/27/us-asks-qatar-to-turn-down-the-volume-of-al-jazeera-news-coverage MaskedSinger (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Article you cited does not say AJ complied and relates to Arabic not English AJ, so no there is no analogy here. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @MakeandtossYou're far better than arguing semantics.
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-hamas-propaganda-war MaskedSinger (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Is there something in that link that is supposed to tell us something about the al-Jazeera, much less the Jerusalem Post? Is there a reason people are bringing up another source we have discussed extensively and have a recent consensus on? nableezy - 16:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Nableezy yes. very much so. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Which is? nableezy - 18:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @MaskedSinger Could you then specify what that is then? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Butterscotch Beluga Yes of course. Thank you for asking. The fact that there is consensus doesn't make it factually correct. Let me give you an example.
    Someone says "a lion has 4 legs. So if a zebra has 4 legs, it must be a lion". There is a RFC about this - there are lot of votes supporting the motion confirming that a zebra has four legs. There are sources saying a zebra has 4 legs and then there is consensus that this is actually the case - a zebra is a lion. Is a zebra now a lion because the RFC said so? In the Wikipedia universe, the answer is yes. But Wikipedia should reflect the world we live in accurately and independently regardless what various discussions decide. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Maybe I should specify, do you have a policy based reason for this tangent on Al Jazeera? Currently it seems you are trying to relitigate the Al Jazeera RFC, rather then focusing on the current RFC. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Honestly I'm tempted to collapse this digression under WP:NOTFORUM. It is not relevant to the relationship between Jerusalem Post and Walla or how that relationship should be treated as affecting the reliability of Jerusalem Post. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Agreed. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Check Your Fact

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 days ago42 comments13 people in discussion
    RFC OPENED
    Closing discussion as #RfC: Check Your Fact has been opened. CNC (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

    Check Your Fact (CYF) is a "for-profit subsidiary" of The Daily Caller, the latter being depcrecated source due to the 2019 RfC. This fact-checking website was briefly discussed last month, where there appears to be lack of consensus over it's reliability.

    As requested by Animalparty, here is an example of CYF as a source being removed from an article based exclusively on the unreliability of WP:DAILYCALLER (see diff). This is where the issue lies: The RfC failed to question CYF; from searching through the discussion, no-one argued that it was unreliable. I otherwise only found one noticeboard discussion (post-RFC) referenced above that was inconclusive.

    Currently the CYF url is categorised as deprecated based on WP:RSPUSES, as this was added by David Gerard in February 2024 (see diff) based on this discussion at RSP (rather than RSN notably). So is it correct that Check Your Fact is deprecated, because of the 2019 RfC? Ie was the RfC about The Daily Caller (the website), or the entity The Daily Caller, Inc. that owns Check Your Fact?

    To me it looks like it was specifically about the website, hence there was no discussion over it's subsidiaries. Overall it seems like incorrect "book keeping" to include this url as deprecated when it wasn't discussed here, but maybe I'm mistaken or misunderstood something?

    And finally the usual question: Should Check Your Fact be considered generally reliable source for use in articles?

    What this discussion isn't, for those quick to jump to conclusions or misinterpret: 1. This isn't about changing an RSP listing, this is about the interpretation of the 2019 RfC. 2. This isn't about the article referenced as a diff, this only serves as an example. Thanks! CNC (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

    As an update, based on deprecated sources archives, I discovered that CYF is in fact not deprecated, so will boldly remove from RSPUSES for now on that very basis. Whether it should be deprecated is another discussion. CNC (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's part of Daily Caller and as factual. Why would it get an exemption? - David Gerard (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I digree that this wasn't deprecated, it was created as just another URL for Daily Caller content and the source is deprecated not a particular URL it happens to be using. As a general principle going over the same ground because a bad sources find a new outlet would be a waste of time.
    Remembering my comment from the last time this came up, at least at first this was no different than the Daily Caller. With it being run by the same staff and using more or less the same content. Over time it appears to have become a bit more separate from its parent organisation, and I could see an argument that it should be now have an exception from the deprecation of the Daily Caller.
    As a separate comment 'fact checking' sites are poor sources in general, and I would suggest their use is always attributed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    should be deprecated if its part of daily caller Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I reversed the removal of the link from RSP - the Daily Caller is presently deprecated whatever URL its content is being served from. If you want to partially reverse this, you'll need an RFC showing consensus to do so (and it's not clear you have the momentum as yet) - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No problem if that's how others see it also, I won't stand in the way of consensus if there are no issues. This discussion has certainly gone a different direction than the previous, but if that's the outcome then so be it. CNC (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If you want to partially reverse this, you'll need an RFC showing consensus to do so would imply that the deprecation RfC treated The Daily Caller as a publisher rather than as a publication. But my reading of the discussion is that it treats it as a publication—one does not need an RfC to remove a sloppily inserted link from RSP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Per WP:BRD, one does not. However given it's been almost 9 months since it's deprecation it's far to assume that WP:STATUSQUO now applies. As well as that BRD won't bring about any consensus here. CNC (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I will repeat my argument from the prevous stale conversation, and assert that there is no good reason besides "I don't like the parent company" to deprecate Checkyourfact.com. Per WP:NEWSORG, Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest. Checkyourfact.com is a fact-checking source, attested to by the IFCN certification. Its Corrections policy is here. It clearly discloses its ownership (potential conflict of interest) on its About us page. Its Methodology is here. Its staff and editorial board is here. Check Your Fact was awarded a grant in June of this year from the Poynter Institute's IFCN. From casual googling it appears to regularly align with fact-checks by USA Today Politifact and Reuters, [39][40][41][42]. It is true that perhaps Checkyourfact might not fact check every claim Wikipedians might wish it to, but guess what, that same logic applies to Politifact, Reuters, Snopes, and every other fact-checking outlet that has ever existed (check your own biases!). There very well may be few cases where citing Checkyourfact is even warranted (especially if there are a dozen other fact-checking sites that Wikipedians don't hate saying the same thing), but nobody has submitted a lick of hard of evidence for why Checkyourfact should be considered unreliable or deprecated beyond "vibes" and guilt by association. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    If by guilt by association you mean acknowledging the existence of WP:SOURCEDEF and the fact that the publisher is a factor determining reliability, then sure, let's go with that. On the other hand, is there any actual point to this discussion (i.e., any disputed claim people actually want to use the source in question to support)? I really don't see the point in having a discussion for the sake of discussion (and faffing about RSP listings is essentially that without any actual usage). Like, I know nobody actually reads the instructions, but there's no reason to be so blatant about it. I would oppose the use of either this or the previous discussion (or any discussion not also about an actual issue)) to support any change anywhere, because people should take the effort to point out, with examples, the actual issue if they want substantive discussion over it instead of endless windmilling. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "any disputed claim people actually want to use the source" It's being used in Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season and Jackson Hinkle at present, it's not needed at the latter but looks useful at the former. In the same light of not faffing around, either these references should be removed or CYF be re-considered as marginally reliable at least. Given the content in question, it can't be considered uncontroversial and therefore an unreliable source shouldn't there. CNC (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    We could either sloppily lop together with all operations of one firm with total ignorance to how this source is structured, or we could attempt to independently assess this source. And, upon looking a bit deeper into this source, it is a certified by the International Fact-Checking Network, which we consider to be generally reliable for the exact purpose of evaluating the reliability of fact-checking websites. The most recent assessment, conducted in March 2024, is quite detailed. I would encourage all of you to take a read through it; the random sample testing for criteria 5.3 - 5.5 do seem to provide a reasonable degree of independent assurance as to the quality of the organization's checks.
    I strongly disagree with lumping this in the The Daily Caller's RSP entry, as the organizations seem to operate with some degree of independence and this was not actually discussed in the deprecation RfC. I agree with CNC that it seems like incorrect book keeping, and I do think there is persuasive evidence from how third parties have evaluated and use CYF that the source is actually WP:GREL.
    — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    While I'm not convinced an RfC close would determine that the source is generally reliable, I also find it unlikely there would be consensus for it to be generally unreliable or deprecated either based on opposing viewpoints so far. Unless there are other comments in the coming days, I'll start an RfC below so we can re-determine the reliability of this source. I don't see any benefit of attempting BRD to remove the source from RSP at this point, ie reverting a bold edit from months ago that has become defacto status quo. There are clearly a few editors who support this edit, against a few of others that don't including myself. This now requires further input from the community. CNC (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    So be it, CommunityNotesContributor. I've started one below. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RfC: Check Your Fact

    edit

    Which of the following describes the reliability of Check Your Fact?

    — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply


    Survey: Check Your Fact

    edit
    • Option 1. Check Your Fact is a certified member of the International Fact-Checking Network (see WP:IFCN for more information) and has been a fact-checking partner of Facebook for quite a while now. The most recent assessment by the International Fact-Checking Network indicates that this is a fact-checking operation with eight dedicated staff. Per the review, which conducted independent sample testing of the fact checks produced by Check Your Fact, this is a fact-checker that uses the best available primary sources where available (to avoid games of telephone; see criteria 3.2), uses multiple sources of evidence where available (see criteria 3.3), makes public a clear structure for editorial control with three dedicated editors (see criteria 4.3-4.4), lists a public methodology (see criteria 4.5-5.1), provides relevant evidence to support or undermine claims when applicable (see criteria 5.3), applies its methodology consistently regardless of who is making the claim (see criteria 5.4), attempts to seek comment from individuals who made claims, when possible (see criteria 5.5), has a published corrections policy, and publishes corrections when applicable (see criteria 6.3), among other items. Funding for the project comes from Facebook (via its fact-checking contracts) and The Daily Caller (via advertising revenue and its general budget). Since at least 2019, Check Your Fact has been editorially independent of The Daily Caller's newsroom, though it is owned by The Daily Caller.
      Based on the independence of the newsroom for Check Your Fact, and the WP:IFCN's certification of the source as a fact-checker, I do think that this is a generally reliable fact checker. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 2/3 While I am receptive to the relatively positive report at the International Fact-Checking network I have some concerns about the methodology. Particularly 1.5 ignores corporate ownership as a potential source of bias. 2.1 allows the fact-checking agency to self-select the facts it checked for review. 5.1 only states that a methodology exists but the link to the actual posted methodology [43] is absurdly vague. 6.2 points to a corrections page but articles to do with hot-button social issues such as abortion access / planned parenthood on the corrections page contain no information beyond that the article was taken down for not meeting editorial standards. So not exactly a correction so much as a redaction. 6.5 assumes that the parent company "has and adheres to an open and honest corrections policy" which I don't believe to be the case notwithstanding the certification of IFCN. Furthermore the IFCN rubrick does not sufficiently address the ways in which the selection decisions of what facts to check can necessarily impact the metanarrative of a fact-checking website. Because of this I find the IFCN certification not entirely persuasive. However it is persuasive enough that I wouldn't go straight to option 4. Simonm223 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      With due respect, I would contrast 2.1 allows the fact-checking agency to self-select the facts it checked for review with the random sampling enforced in 1.4, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5. And while 2.1 (The applicant fact-checks using the same high standards of evidence and judgement for equivalent claims regardless of who made the claim) is a self-attestation, 5.4 requires a random sample to be tested to check the same thing (The applicant in its fact checks assesses the merits of the evidence found using the same high standards applied to evidence on equivalent claims, regardless of who made the claim). So the alleged flaw in criteria 2.1 (that there is no independent checking here) is illusory due to the testing in 5.4.
      If you don't like the methodology of the IFCN, that is one thing, but the resounding RSN consensus is that it is generally reliable for this exact purpose. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I hear you but I think that irregularity is part of what makes the IFCN methodology questionable. That being said my big two concerns with the IFCN methodology, as I said below in the discussion area, are 5.1, 6.2 and 6.5. Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      What do you mean by that irregularity? Do you mean that the certification requires both self-attestation and independent assurance? Because that sort of thing is extremely standard in industry. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I would be happier if there were no self-selection criteria and if the certifying body was fully controlling what is selected. But, again, this is not my main point of contention. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 2 Although CYF started as little more than a new URL for the Daily Caller it now has a separate editorial staff and writers. However I don't think fact checking sites are good sources in general, better sources should be found with fact checkers only used sparingly and with care. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1 until such time as unreliable factual reporting is identified. The perennial sources list is intended for sources that we've repeatedly identified actual problems with, and despite their concerning ownership (classification as generally reliable doesn't preclude WP:WEIGHT) the discussion to classify them here feels preemptive. I think we should wait until someone spots an incorrect or heavily biased fact check being used in the encyclopedia, and at that point Check Your Fact could be brought to RSN. The main header of this very page states fairly clearly that "RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed": this is preemptive and out-of-policy.
      For what it's worth on the source itself, I agree with ActivelyDisinterested regarding fact checking sites in general; however, I don't see a reason to consider them anything less than reliable. As a disclaimer, I am the editor who initially included Check Your Fact at Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, noted above by CommunityNotesContributor. This was the best source I could find for the claim, as the staff claim to have done due diligence trying to find evidence for the false rumor. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Addendum: struck my criticism of the RfC after reading the previous discussions and realize this may actually be necessary. I still think it should be considered generally reliable, but with an RS:P notice addressing both the concepts of fact checking ("Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant." from WP:SNOPES, "Check Your Fact is often a tertiary source. Editors prefer reliable secondary sources over Check Your Fact when available." adapted from WP:BRITANNICA) as well as a note about its ownership ("It is a subsidiary of The Daily Caller, a deprecated source, and there is no consensus on whether/a consensus that it is independent of its parent." adapted from the Deseret News entry). Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Premature/Unclear (which I guess would fall under option 2 by the definitions of the categories). I don't see the reason why we should have a whole ass RFC on a source that is used on Wikipedia all of two times, and for which both previous discussions were heavily focused on some vague abstract notion of reliability rather than any challenges to use in context, as is more typically appropriate for this noticeboard. I would oppose making any changes to RSP based on such abstract and meta discussions in general. As for the specifics, I don't think a single affiliation is sufficient to establish a reputation, and it seems to early to call the organisation well-established, so I cannot endorse a classification as generally reliable. For its use on the hurricane article specifically, the primary issue I see here is not reliability, but that neither source actually directly supports the text in question, which is also rather weaselly (some have claimed, really?). Being threatened with arrests or execution is not the same as actually being arrested or executed, as I'm sure nobody actually executed will dispute, so rumours of actual vs threatened action should ideally not be equated either. The best source in the world still shouldn't be used to support a claim it doesn't actually make. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Moved to #Discussion: Check Your Fact
    • Option 1 Red-tailed hawk made a good case. Even attempting to self-impose such methodological strictures justifies assuming reliability for the time being. Roggenwolf (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1 per Red-tailed hawk. Nemov (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1 per Red-tailed hawk and WP:IFCN, which says There is consensus that [IFCN] is generally reliable for determining the reliability of fact-checking organizations. No evidence of inaccurate reporting has been presented here. I've looked through the articles on the front page and they seem even-handed and well-researched. Most of them are focused on debunking false claims on social media, so editors should consider WP:DUE when deciding if the content is worth including. Astaire (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1: This is a pretty standard fact-checker and should be treated similarly to other major fact-checkers. According to scholarly reports, it is "considered by the fact-checking community as highly reputable." [44]. Likewise, academic studies frequently utilize CYF in their research (see [45], [46], [47], etc.). Though, I will note it is quite strange--and rare--to see a fact-checker owned by an unreliable source. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Discussion: Check Your Fact

    edit
    • Aside from my comments above in the survey section, I would note that I do take objection lumping this source in with The Daily Caller on RSP without prior RSN discussion; it is extraordinarily sloppy to do that when it's got an independent newsroom and it wasn't discussed prior. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Likewise, I've attempted to address this at WP:CHECKYOURFACT until the RfC closes. Note this does not mean that CYF is no longer deprecated (it's still listed as such), only that there lacks consensus over categorisation. CNC (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I'm a bit concerned that decisions about CYF should not just be derived from the IFCN page which has methodological faults. Particularly their treatment of the corrections policy of the parent company and the handling of corrections surrounding Planned Parenthood by CYF are concerning. However we have a lot of garbage sources that aren't deprecated. I don't think this is a good source of information. But it's probably not as bad as Daily Caller unfiltered. Simonm223 (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      The issue is that when CYF was first setup it was just the editor of the Daily Caller posting content very similar to what was on the Daily Caller. If they setup a new site tomorrow called the Caily Daller that simply duplicate the content of the Daily Caller, then it would be silly to say it required a new RFC because it was using a different url.
      Saying that the CYF now has a separate editorial staff and writers, it's just that hasn't always been the case. So there was nothing sloppy about initially including it in the DC RSP entry. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Except that it was added to RSP in 2024, despite no discussion on it and despite prior public reporting that the newsroom had been independent... 5 years before that. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      It would have been included in the Daily Caller RFC, that happened 5 and half years ago. As per my comment in the survey section, I think things have changed. But it had little separation at that point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      "It would have been included in the Daily Caller RFC" It wasn't. CNC (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      If a unreliable source starts publishing at a new URL that URL is still unreliable, the idea that a new RFC is required when that happens is just bureaucracy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Moved from #RfC: Check Your Fact
    • "I don't see the reason why we should have a whole ass RFC on a source that is used on Wikipedia all of two times" Because RfCs are for dispute resolution and there is a clear dispute over this source. Unless you can identify the consensus in the above discussion for us to save us all time and effort? It otherwise doesn't matter if it's only used twice, an RfC can even be for source usage in a single article if there is a dispute regarding it's usage. There is also no obligation to engage in this (even if it is a "request"); so if it seems like a waste of time for you, then might be worth considering not engaging to avoid time wasting. CNC (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      What would "save us all time and effort" is for people to read the part of the editnotice where it says the article it is used in, and the claim it supports and not create discussions where no real dispute in articlespace actually exists. Yes, technically there have been (multiple!) previous discussions on this source (one of them in this very section, even!), but starting discussions and RFCs that, intentionally or not, exclude the context surrounding the source gives the appearance of trying to bypass WP:RSCONTEXT, which is highly inappropriate and detrimental to evaluating the quality of a source in the places and situations it is likely to be used on Wikipedia. My objection on the RFC is thus on both procedural and substantive grounds. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      (Procedurally, this is premature because there is virtually no use, no dispute affecting actual article content, and neither of the two previous discussions are valid. It is unclear because I have no idea how people use it, other than that they don't actually appear to do so. Substantively I don't think it's appropriate to call a newsroom that's existed all of 5 years well-established as per NEWSORG, and unclear because I am not in the habit of taking a single source as gospel, no matter how good it is.) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    RFC: Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?

    edit
    Latest comment: 19 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

      Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grey Literature
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?

    For use in science related articles, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science) § White and grey literature.
    Previous discussions as per Wikipedia:RFCBEFORE. [48][49]. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Indie Vision Music

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 days ago68 comments9 people in discussion

    Indie Vision Music has been used as a reliable source for Christian music articles since at least 2013 (that's the furthest back I can trace its usage, and it's a revision by me when several editors including myself were overhauling WP:CM/S. We were double-checking each other's work, and discussed many of the sources, but we didn't feel the need to exhaustively discuss every source.)EDIT: see this talk discussion --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC) At the time, Indie Vision Music had a Wikipedia article, which then was later deleted - something I supported, but in that discussion I mentioned that I deemed it reliable, just not notable. For a lot of Christian music, it is an invaluable source as often, especially in the indie and metal genres. There's scant coverage in more generalist publications outside of the CCM/Christian rock/Christian metal niche, so it's often one of 3 or 4 sources in which one can find accessible coverage. Graywalls asked me to bring this here because they are unsure of the reliability of the site. It certainly has a reputation for reliability, as it is referenced/utilized by reliable sources such as Cross Rhythms (this - 2015, this - 2018, and this - 2018 as examples; this from 2016 is about the record label operated by the media outlet, but it explicitly calls the site "well regarded"), The Phantom Tollbooth - 2005, Manteca Bulletin (here, 2010), Arrow Lords of Metal - 2022, referencing a 2013 interview article and HM (here in 2013, here in 2013, here in 2022). I've excluded reprints of press releases for these examples. Cross Rhythms and HM are among the most reputable and well-known sources for Christian music, the latter being the prime journalism outlet regarding Christian hard rock and metal music.Reply

    The site founder, Brandon Jones, and another writer, Lloyd Harp, both also write for HM as well (Jones since 2017 and Harp since at least 2009 2007) and thus have credentials outside IVM. There are multiple writers for the site besides those two individuals, which I believe satisfies the having a writing and editorial staff. The concern from Graywalls is, I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) the professionalism of the team and if the site owner practices actual editorial oversight over his writers (to quote them, "If you and I were both auto enthusiasts who track race together and we buddy up with you being the writer and me being the editor, that's not sufficient to make our web zine as a WP:RS with editorial oversight "). Though there are multiple staff writers, especially over the past two decades, Brandon lists himself for contact and doesn't list the writers. So I can understand part of the concern. I will note that there is one writer who is also a member of several bands (they might also be a Wikipedia editor and thus at this juncture I won't name them so they're not outed - it was actually that COI that prompted Graywalls to bring up the issue of if IVM is reliable), and thus of course would be unreliable for coverage of those bands, same as Doug Van Pelt, the founder of HM, is unreliable for coverage of Lust Control (because he's a member of it), except for as statements from the band themselves. Given the above reputation, I don't personally see warrant for this suspicion. IVM functions the same as other online metal sources deemed RS, such as No Clean Singing (which is predominantly a team of three) and MetalSucks. The blog format is how most of these sites function now, including HM. Indeed, Brandon Jones mentions in his site bio that the site wasn't always a blog format and they adopted that structure for the site because that was what became practical in the mid-2000s. The site also operated/s a record label, but that I'm considering separate issue as that doesn't establish reliability. I'd also stress that any artist published via the Indie Vision Label would thus present a COI with IVM news/review coverage of that artist and should not be used other than for statements about the artist themselves.

    The TL;DR - Indie Vision Music has been used on Wikipedia for over a decade, has multiple writers under a site owner, has been used by other, more mainstream sources as a source, even called by one of them "well regarded", and both the owner and another writer write for a magazine that is a prime source for the subject niche. However, another writer has a COI with some artists, the website operated/s a music label which could have some COI issues with specific artists, and an editor has questioned, due to the one COI issue and the blog structure of the site, whether actual editorial oversight is practiced.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    The real question comes to is the editorial process compared to that of the Time Magazine, or is it more along that of two well known and popular, but generally unusable Forbes Contributors and Huffington Post contributors sources?
    Many of the writers in IVM articles are band members, rather than professionally trained journalists.
    Things to be addressed here are:
    What sort of things can it be relied on for factual accuracy?
    Is it of any use at all for establishing notability and if so, for what?
    3family6 said it's reliable because it's in the Christian Metal list, but they did acknowledge they are more or less the lone curator of that list, so that list should perhaps be seen similarly as a blog or a personal website. Graywalls (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    to clarify, currently I'm essentially the sole contributor, that was not the case 10 years ago when the list was created. And I last found the discussion, see below
    This is what the site's staff page looked like when it was added to WP:CM/S. I'm pinging editors who were either involved in the discussion of adding the sources (which included IVM) or who have otherwise been - or are now active 11 years later - in WikiProject Christian music (and who are still active - sadly, a couple accounts got banned for socking unrelated to this issue): TenPoundHammer, Toa Nidhiki05, Royalbroil, TARDIS, The Cross Bearer. I'm also going to reach out to Brandon Jones about the editorial policy (without mentioning this discussion), and see what he says.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @3family6:, The RS/N specializes in evaluating sources. I don't know why you've pinged five users you hand picked. It's kind of WP:CANVASSish in a recruiting kind of way especially when you hold one particular position on the matter on hand. Graywalls (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I already explained why I pinged these editors. Most of them were involved with curating the sources list, which included IVM. I don't know what their opinions on this issue are. It's not Canvassing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @3family6:, Going off a bit on a tangent, but it seems to me sockpuppetry seems rather prevalent among music focused editors. Sometimes, it's necessary to go back and discount inputs from sock form consensus. Graywalls (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This is in a large part precisely WHY I tagged editors who were involved in that discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Pinging Invisiboy42293, Booyahhayoob, and TrulyShruti as they are also currently active and are part of the Christian music WikiProject. I also will post a notice of this discussion there so other active editors I have missed might still be notified.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Selecting people enthusiastic, probably part of a somewhat cohesive group who share common views may foster more groupthink. Graywalls (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    People in the subject area are informed. Per WP:CANVASS "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." It's ridiculous to say that people who are interested in the topic and edit it should be precluded from important discussions about what constitutes reliable sources regarding that subject. Especially given the import that the outcome has, one way or the other.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I believe it's like notifying hand picked known railfanning people from WikiProject Trains and asking whether certain railfanning websites are reliable and expert sources. You chose an area of your enthusiasm and you handpicked a set of people from (relatively niche) Wikiproject group, as opposed to general music. I'm not surprised the responses so far have been from people you have hand notified, and of predictable input. Graywalls (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I also posted in WikiProject Albums, I'll ping some editors from there in a day or two if they haven't responded. The niche is why I notified editors from that project, as they're familiar with the sources. I'll post a notice to the general music WikiProject as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    and I posted to Projects Journalism, and Magazines. Graywalls (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks! Yeah, I was trying to think of relevant projects, especially since this hasn't gotten any eyes apart from the users I tagged.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I also notified WikiProject Albums.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I think the caveats 3family6 provided here are broadly acceptable. Obviously a subject isn't reliable when discussing itself or connected topics, but HM and IVM broadly are excellent source - HM in particular, which is without a doubt an absolutely indispensable resource for Christian rock and metal. So I think, with those specific caveats, it's an acceptable resource. Toa Nidhiki05 18:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Responding to 3family6's ping: Truthfully I haven't been active on Christian music Wikipedia in quite some time (personal reasons plus my interests drifted elsewhere). That said, I am familiar with Indie Vision Music, both as an editor and just casually, and in my experience they're pretty solidly journalistic when it comes to Christian music. I don't know of any reason not to use them as a source in this field. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    • Pinging these editors from a related discussion to see what they think: Saqib, Axad12. The COI editing from User:Metalworker14 included this source (IVM), as well as HM. The latter has no association with the issue, whereas one former IVM author, who hasn't written for the site since 2017, since 2018 has a COI with some bands and their work was used by the paid editing for Metalworker14. Does this taint the entire source, or would the source be unreliable even if this specific issue hadn't occurred?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • This looks like any other dime-a-dozen unreliable music site, self-published by amateurs with no apparent training or background in music criticism, no editorial policies, and only known by other niche or local outlets. I see no reason why we'd give their viewpoints any weight, either for reviews or for consideration of notability. I'll also note that I wasn't canvassed here. Woodroar (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Lloyd Harp has a decade of experience or so at HM it seems to have come on to IVM more recently. Regarding the other authors I don't know of previous work. Brandon Jones founded IVM and only more recently has joined HM.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @3family6:, you've mentioned sharing of writers as an indicator of reliability, but I am not sure if that's true. Writers don't write whatever they want and they are expected to write certain things to the publication's standards.
    Although it says to evaluate case-by-case, we're generally discouraged from using contributor articles on Forbes. Such freelance writer sharing isn't uncommon but doesn't turn the source into reliable category. One example article https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrolli/2019/10/17/metallica-scores-biggest-global-rock-event-cinema-release-with-sm/ their profile says I am a music and entertainment reporter who specializes in pop, hip-hop and heavy metal. I cover numerous festivals, interview local and national touring musicians, and examine how artists' personal brands and social media antics affect their art and their earnings. My work has appeared in Billboard, Paste, Consequence of Sound, Noisey and the Daily Dot but just because that person wrote it doesn't mean it can be treated as an equivalent of a Billboard or Daily Dot article.
    Another source, such as HubPages and their now defunct sister projects like Delishably and ReelRundown did have editorial oversight and editorial policy but with specific purposes and they're rated based on AI evaluation, moderator reviews and "search traffic" over a long term. Those are MONETIZED articles and the purpose is to drive traffic so that hosting service can maximize ad revenue. The simple presence of editorial oversight doesn't make it reliable. So, what remains to be determined is the editorial process of IVM. Is it more like Forbes contributors, Hub Pages and like or comparable to Billboard, Consequence of Sound or National Geograpics? Graywalls (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Please read the context, Graywalls. I was responding to this statement self-published by amateurs with no apparent training or background in music criticism,. For one of the writers, this is not true, as he has an extensive background with a reputable magazine. You already brought up your point about Forbes contributors, you don't need to do so again.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I was providing an actual piece written by someone with respectable experience so there's a specific example. It's not just a simply rephrased version of the same thing I said which appears to be what you may have been implying. Graywalls (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That is a fair point, I appreciate that these are much more fleshed out example. But that's not the point of this particular part of the discussion. What was in discussion here is the professionalism of the writing staff, particularly prior experience. And it's a mixed bag. To your point, yes, just because they're a professional writer doesn't mean that they aren't essentially self-published in some cases. Still, the professionalism of the writers is a useful tool for determining reliability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • My feeling is that the recent discussion at COIN (here [50]), which ultimately resulted in Metalworker14 being blocked as a primarily promo account, indicates the problems that can be encountered in small scenes (whether they be music scenes or other relatively small groups of enthusiasts).
      When a user who has a range of potential COIs starts to edit Wikipedia under a pseudonym, evidently the undisclosed nature of what they are doing will create issues. However, whether that necessarily casts a cloud over their work off-wiki is a different question.
      My feeling is that material created within small scenes is primarily for the benefit of fans - who are probably aware of the possibility of some form of COI existing (whether that be direct financial COI or individuals reviewing the work of their friends, etc.). Fans are, I'd suggest, untroubled by such issues and are grateful for the fact that dedicated coverage exists at all, created by individuals who are also enthusiasts. Whether the material is of a nature that an encyclopaedia ought to be depending on, however, I am inclined to doubt.
      Really we are probably in the realms of fanzines, i.e. where editors are likely grateful that material has been submitted at all and significant editorial oversight is potentially lacking. Axad12 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • I was asked to comment here rather than at the notice at RS/N, and this extensive discussion has suggested my priors on this issue are still the case: this is a standard mid-level independent source on a specialized musical topic, and 3family6's comments indicate that its writers have the level of musical expertise and training that any other music rag would have. They are not investigative journalists, but rather critics evaluating based on a background in an understanding of musical style and history - which is what you get from most staff who write for e.g. Pitchfork, Allmusic, Popmatters, or Dusted. I don't think the use of the source by one troublesome editor casts doubt on the source generally, and I'm inclined to buy the argument that the writers IVM carries that also write for HM has some weight (since HM is reliable). We'd want to exercise COI caution for any artist directly associated with Indie Vision's label or a musical release from a staff member, but that's not a cause for general concern about the source. Chubbles (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • I meant to post this here, not the WP Music, but posted there by mistake. Looking at https://www.indievisionmusic.com/author/brandon-j/ it sure seems like a self published source. My personal take on it is that it can't be used to support notability. These small time bands are not competing against each other but rather supporting each other. The blogosphere of these band blogs is an echo chamber of like minded bands boosting and praising each other publicly to collectively raise themselves. It's like friends and family writing references for each other. If they offer correction notices, it's better than not doing that, but people do that even on Wikipedia pages with strike out. It's not a one man show, but still a blog. Editorial process that only consists of fixing grammar/spelling and suppressing contents of liability concerns prior to publishing isn't really much of editorial oversight. Graywalls (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    First, let me address the part about "like-minded bands": Indie Vision Music isn't a band, it's a website, and for awhile was also a record label. So far, it's been shown that one author was in some bands. Authors are allowed to also be musicians, there's nothing wrong with that. And that writer has not written for the site since 2017. "boosting and praising each other publicly to collectively raise themselves." - that's not correct, as the site will give out negative reviews (this one, for example). "Editorial process that only consists of fixing grammar/spelling and suppressing contents of liability concerns prior to publishing isn't really much of editorial oversight." What are you referring to here? Hypotheticals aren't useful. Please substantiate them. The correction examples I found and listed above are more than that. Does the review process involve more than that? Maybe yes, maybe no. You are speculating here that they don't actually fact-check. This could be a group blog, which, yes, is an example of a self-published source. Or, this could be a site with an editorial process. We know it has a reputation and is used by others. The question is about the editorial process, since that isn't public knowledge.
    Now, as to Brandon Jones and self-published sources, Brandon Jones is the publisher but also writes for the site. Other writers for the site, it's not an issue - they're the writers, he's the publisher, so they aren't self-published. But, are articles by Brandon Jones self-published? I think I asked about cases where a publication owner and publisher writes material for that publication years ago, I think in reference to Doug Van Pelt of HM or John DiBiase of Jesus Freak Hideout. I couldn't find that discussion, and so I brought this to the WP:V talk page. As I asked there, Like, for example, if Ian Danzig writes an article for Exclaim! (which he owns and publishes), or HM's founder and publisher Doug Van Pelt or Jesus Freak Hideout's owner and publisher John DiBiase write articles for their respective websites, or A. G. Sulzberger writes a story for The New York Times, are those articles self-published sources only or are they considered reliable, independent published sources? And basically, it depends. There's actually two current, very active discussions on basically this and more broadly related questions about orgs where the publishing process is internal to the organization (as opposed to an external entity, for example, Blabbermouth.net being hosted by Roadrunner Records). And there doesn't seem to be a consensus. I think a lot of it depends on the editorial process. On that point, with Indie Vision Music, I think there's two distinct eras to that site on this issue. From 2006 to 2020, the site had a managing editor, Josh Murphy. That adds a layer of editorial process, both for the site and for Brandon Jones. But, conversely, how much is that editorial control independent when it comes to Brandon's writings, as Brandon will be the one publishing them? That still seems to be a pretty close relation. I don't know if there's an answer here. I think that having a managing editor does indicate an actual editorial process from 2006 to 2020 at least. I still haven't heard back yet what the policy is at present. I don't know if I will get a response (which I don't think proves things one way or the other, it just leaves that question unanswered). I'm wondering if perhaps Brandon's writings from 2017 onward (that year being the year he was hired by HM) are self-published material from a reliable expert in the field, whereas the other writers are not self-published.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    From what I've seen, RSN discussions tend to find that anything written by the site runner would be considered self-published. For example, see the WP:RSP entry for Quackwatch. The editor, Stephen Barrett, is an expert on quackery but because he basically runs the site, we often can't use his pieces per WP:BLPSPS. That's not a problem with other authors at the site, because their work would proceed through the normal editorial process (i.e., Barrett). Woodroar (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Okay, that's what I was thinking. Thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Evaluating the presence/absence of editors is easy enough, but evaluating their effectiveness and reliability is the tricky one. They could just be a website with contributors and editors from various bands each given various titles. As another editor mentioned, we have to differentiate professional editors vs a group of volunteer band members with no formal training in journalism running a glorified blog. Graywalls (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    On that metric, then, Indie Vision Music is reliable. Volunteer professional staff is expressly allowed. The site publisher has been operating the site since 2000, and since 2017 is a professional writer for HM. A current writer has written for HM since 2009. The only band member I'm aware of is one, now former writer. And band members are allowed to also write music journalism, there's no wiki-guideline prohobiting this. So, how do we evaluate the effectiveness of the source? This is where WP:USEBYOTHERS comes into play - we can check if it has a good reputation. And, as I demonstrated above, the copy of IVM is referenced or republished by other established reliable sources, and a reliable source calls IVM "well-regarded".--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @3family6:, As has contents from NYPOST or the DAILYMAIL, both of which are red in [{WP:RSP]]. So, I wouldn't rely much on USEBYOTHERS. Graywalls (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If you disagree with WP:V, then hold an RfC at Village pump. This isn't the venue.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    You brought up one point, and I addressed that point. Graywalls (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I brought up that point because WP: USEBYOTHERS is one of the two primary means of determining of a source is reliable (the other being an editorial oversight process). If you disagree with USEBYOTHERS, then by all means bring that up at an RfC.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm disagreeing in your interpretation and application. Graywalls (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of a topic as far as we can determine them. How is my usage contrary to that? I haven't relied solely on USEBYOTHERS. I've argued that this in tandem with editorial oversight is how reliability is determined.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Chubbles, what do you think in light of the question that Graywalls raises here and that I've tried to address. Do you think the site is still reliable, in light of this?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Of course I do, but I'm not the one you need to convince - he is. Chubbles (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I was wondering what your reasoning is here and why this is more than just a group blog.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think that Graywalls is setting an unnecessarily high bar and making unnecessary presumptions about the nature and motives of music criticism and journalism (here specifically, but also generally). Most music publications would fail under his definition of an independent source - which is precisely his point; I believe he is convinced that the vast majority of popular music coverage on the site isn't worthy of the site, and this is one step in that effort. I'm confident that, say, Pitchfork, Popmatters, Stereogum, or Brooklyn Vegan would also fail his criteria; they are also "group blogs" in exactly the same way he means. If the standard of a reliable source for popular music is the journalistic equivalent of The New York Times, we will have precious little music to write about on Wikipedia. Chubbles (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for that explanation--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Here but also generally, Chubbles and I rarely see eye-to-eye on things though but most of our disagreements are over the notability of record labels. I firmly believe they're companies and are not expressly exempt under music related SNG, therefore should be held to NCORP, but they believe record labels articles should be permitted to remain with unnecessarily low bar. Yes absolutely, journalistic equivalent of NYT is expected for record labels, like any other articles subject to NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This is not about record labels. You are correct that NCORP applies, but that's not relevant here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    3family6, you keep bringing up HM and USEBYOTHERS as if it's a slam dunk case, but I don't think it is. When niche sources share authors with and are cited by similar niche sources, that's not evidence that they're reliable—it simply means that they've created a walled garden. You compared HM to No Clean Singing and MetalSucks above, but No Clean Singing has more than 3x the number of Facebook followers, and MetalSucks has 25x as many. Before this discussion, I'd never heard of Indie Vision Music or HM, and I've been listening to metal for more than 3 decades. (Not to personalize this discussion too much, but after checking your User page, longer than you've been alive!) I'd even consider No Clean Singing to be pretty insignificant as far as sources go. It's also a niche source, but not as niche as "metal but ALSO Christian". Woodroar (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Those might be something that might belong to the same web ring in the pre-Facebook days. Graywalls (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    USEBYOTHERS isn't necessarily a slam dunk. My objection to Graywalls was because I had the impression of them blanket dismissing that usage rather than engaging in the examples given. Yes, DailyMail is used by others, but it also has a mixed reputation and demonstrated consistent issues with bias and inaccuracies. Such a poor reputation hasn't been demonstrated in the case of IVM - that an editor doing undisclosed paid editing also used a source that was deemed accepted prior to them joining Wikipedia doesn't disqualify a source.
    Now, as to the sources used, HM was just one of several references - there's also the less niche CCM Magazine and Cross Rhythms, as well as the Manteca Bulletin, and a reference in [Arrow] Lords of Metal (might still be niche, but isn't the Christian metal niche). I find it a bit interesting that the heavy metal reviews/coverage is the majority of the examples I could find, as IVM is more of an indie music site than specifically metal.
    Regarding HM, it probably was a lot more significant before I was born and when I was a very small child, when Stryper was still big and a mainstream act. The publication does regularly interview mainstream artists such as Alice Cooper and Trans Siberian Orchestra. Still, yes, Christian metal is niche, apart from the big 2000s metalcore wave, and Christian extreme metal is so niche and online-based (apart from in some Nordic countries) that a recent book noted the fact of its obscurity to scholars. That HM is for a more niche market doesn't make it less reliable, and a 2018 discussion at WikiProject albums agreed that it is reliable as well. My point with NCS (which discussion on this noticeboard concluded was unreliable - I have changed my mind and agreed with that assessment, based on the evidence) and MetalSucks or numerous other RS is that they are structured the same way. I haven't really seen an argument that demonstrates how IVM is unreliable other than it being a more niche source than those. I wouldn't be as liberal as Chubbles, perhaps, in assessing sources, but I don't see why unreliability is being presumed outside of the issue with how the source was used in COI ways on some select articles.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Context is important. As the heading on this page says. This discussion should be in the context of particular claims / types of claims that it is supporting and whether it is suitable to support those claim/uses. North8000 (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Yeah, I've realized that this would have helped. The uses of this source are primarily for music journalism - news reporting about bands, music reviews, and retrospectives/music history.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That's a start. But we should take a look at the structure of this conversation. Graywalls is seemingly arguing for blanket exclusion of this source. My thought is that is unlikely, and in any case, per the heading of this page, this would not be the place for it. The heading of this page says to include the specific article and text which it is supporting. Maybe a good start would be to give a specific example. North8000 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'll give some examples. Thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    North8000, these are the ways I've either used it myself or have seen it used:

    1. To verify band membership and releases by bands
    2. Interviews
    3. Album/song reviews and criticism, including supporting factual BLP claims (who is/was in the band or on the album, for example)
    4. Music history (I'm currently working on an article in my sandbox that I've used it for this, such as this and this example.
    5. Hypothetically, it could be used as a primary source for music released on its record label. I haven't encountered that usage on Wikipedia yet, but it might be out there.

    With usage No. 1, what I think prompted all this, is Graywalls noticed that Metalworker14 (now banned for UPE) had included articles related to and including Symphony of Heaven, and some other articles, that were written by Mason Beard from Symphony of Heaven and some other bands. Beard was/is working for a promotional company as well. Thus in those cases, citing that author, and possibly IVM in general, is definitely COI, even though Beard hasn't written for IVM since 2017 and didn't join Symphony of Heaven until 2018.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    IMO #1 is fine if the veracity in the info isn't doubted. #2 isn't a use, it a type of source/source content. #3 looks good for uncontroversial factual claims. I don't know enough about the site to comment on #3 regarding reviews/criticism. #4 IMO looks good for uncontroversial factual history. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    #2 I should have been more specific. Use as a source of critical opinion and discussing and categorizing musical style of artists, and of making factual claims about artists and band members.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    1. Critical opinion of some non-professionally trained band member author from some random highly non-notable run of the mill vanity band is severely UNDUE for inclusion in any capacity at all. Graywalls (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I could see, and might endorse, not using that specific author.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I'm still getting the impression that it's just one man webmaster, and contributors deal, so along the line of user submitted moderated blog who makes the host/don't host decision. It says at https://www.indievisionmusic.com/contactus/ they got rid of their PO box. Actually it doesn't even look like they even had a proper office. There's no indication it's more than a label name, a webmaster, and contributors and I see no indication of it being a proper publisher. Graywalls (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    The group blog/webmaster-contributors argument could be argued with many of the RS on WP:A/S - do you want to open a discussion about those?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Any consensus reached there is a local consensus and wouldn't override the broader consensus that would form here. Graywalls (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Some of those have had consensus from here. Again, do you want to open up a broader discussion about any websites which do not have an entity as the publisher separate from the site itself?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There is, coincidentally, actually one such discussion open right now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Oh yes, I discovered that. I commented in a couple spots, regarding that question.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Graywalls, if you're interested, I asked over at the Grey Literature RfC about this issue of websites published by one or two individuals.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    RfC: Al-Manar

    edit
    Latest comment: 4 days ago123 comments25 people in discussion

    What is the reliability of Al-Manar?

    - Amigao (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Previous discussion, per WP:RFCBEFORE. The Kip (contribs) 03:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    LinkSearch results Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Survey (Al-Manar)

    edit
    • Option 3, per comments from Amigao, Alaexis, and BobFromBrockley in the prior thread. It seems to be a comparable propaganda/disinfo outlet to Al Mayadeen, which we deprecated several months ago, but with a handful of instances (i.e. the soccer player info brought up by Chess, or WP:ABOUTSELF reasons) where it may be somewhat appropriate to use. The Kip (contribs) 03:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      If and only if this ends up option 2, which would be problematic in itself, the RSP entry should make a clear distinction between justified usage (ex. non-controversial events in Lebanese life and society) and problematic usage (ex. conflicts that Hezbollah is a direct party to (Arab-Israeli, Syrian civil war), etc). That should be the absolute baseline, considering newer precedents set with the Jewish Chronicle and other sources that have some valid uses but are systemically unreliable with regards to the conflict. The Kip (contribs) 19:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Many of the comments from Amigao, Alaexis, and BobFromBrockley in the prior thread have been rebutted as misrepresenting Al-Manar. I encourage users to click through the links and see for themselves.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Having clicked through the links, I continue to endorse my position and disagree with the rebuttals' rationale. The Kip (contribs) 19:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Would also like to emphasize the verbatim re-reporting of articles from RT and TASS, both GUNREL/deprecated sources, that's been pointed out below. The Kip (contribs) 19:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 3 per The Kip. ~ HAL333 05:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 2. I'd pick 3 for pretty much anything relating to conflicts in the Middle East or other contentious issues. But things happen in Lebanon other than war. Al-Manar's Arabic section has a decent amount of information on uncontroversial aspects of Lebanese society. I would like to see more evidence about how Al-Manar is used to support false claims onwiki before a full GUNREL !vote. Right now, GUNREL means blanket removal for a lot of people. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Option 4 - it's very blatant propaganda. The English content is also just quite sloppy and amateurish. Just glancing at a few front page articles,
    • [55] the Hitler of our time, Benjamin Netanyahu
    • [56] the Zionist invaders are incapable of facing men of God directly (in their own voice, not marked as opinion or anything)
    • [57] Israeli police will question Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chief of staff over blackmailing of an Israeli occupation officer - implies wrongdoing (maybe unintentional from a bad translation?), never mentioning that this was ruled out by a police investigation
    • Regularly accuses "Zionist media" of lies with no details, e.g. this vague accusation of a "fabricated report" by Maariv.
    There's just a complete lack of professionalism; RT is better in many ways. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    [75] no comment (I don't want to violate BLP).
    [76] nothing wrong with an opinion that is shared by hundreds of millions. Yes, in their own voice (it's not Wikipedia).
    [77] the usual news reporting (nothing wrong with that either).
    Regularly accuses "Zionist media" of lies So? it's not like the Zionists don't have a very long history of lying. M.Bitton (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Such statements of fact in their own voice demonstrate zero regard for journalistic objectivity.
    • Reliable sources will not imply wrongdoing based on allegations (again it might be a sloppy translation, but either is bad), and will correct false accusations when someone is cleared by an investigation.
    • "the Zionists" is not an entity; Maariv is an entity and a fairly reputable newspaper. But the point is that reliable sources will offer some kind of substantiation when making serious accusations. Here it's not even clear what exactly they're claiming is fabrication.
    — xDanielx T/C\R 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    They don't need to be pretend to be objective when describing those who are exterminating their people (with the help of those who pretend to be neutral).
    So called reliable sources such as the NYT, literally fabricated a story to help Israel. By you standard, we should deprecate NYT. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @XDanielx, The Times of Israel frequently calls Hamas members as "terrorists"[58], a subjective term, so I'm not sure why its unprofessional for Al-Manar to refer to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as "Zionist invaders"? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I was more getting at incapable of facing men of God directly. Professional news orgs will have at least some modicum of journalistic objectivity and would never write such things in their own voice. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 2 per Chess. Obviously should not be used anywhere near I/P, but may be marginally reliable for things in Lebanon outside of that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 3. I believe they are generally unreliable, due to multiple examples of disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories. Comparable sources might be as The Cradle, al-Mayadeen and IRNA, all of which I believe are designated gunrel. Option 2 might be worth considering, if phrased stringently, as the source might be usable for some uncontroversial facts about e.g. Lebanese sport or the statements of Hezbollah and Hezbollah-aligned politicians, but presumably (a) those could be sourced from better places (Lebanon has some decent free press) and (b) might be permissable uses of an unreliable source anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 2 per Chess. I don't see anything that would justify option 3 (if the word "generally" has changed meaning recently, then we need discuss the so called "reliable sources" that have been caught misrepresenting the events, or worse, fabricated stories, such as the NYT). M.Bitton (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment. I want to point out that, with the exception of Al-Jazeera, pretty much every source listed at WP:RSP from the Arab world and Muslim world is listed as GUNREL or MREL. We really need to check our WP:Systematic bias.VR (Please ping on reply) 18:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I believe there is more to it than systematic bias. M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      The nature of RSPN means we're much more likely to discuss crap sources than good ones. And given many if not most governments in the Arab/Muslim world are not fond of freedom of the press, it should be no surprise that most entries here lean on the unreliable side. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Is that right? Mada Masr? Lebanon Daily Star? L'Orient-Le Jour? The New Arab/Al-Araby Al-Jadeed? The National (Abu Dhabi)? Asharq al-Awsat? BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      None of those are on RSP, which is what VR said. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I think this is a point against systematic bias against A/M reliable sources. RSP is a bunch of planes with holes in them, some of which made it out to be considered reliable for another day. If A/M sources were being regularly, unfairly challenged, there would be more green entries. Safrolic (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I disagree in that I think it says something that every time we have brought a non-Israeli middle eastern source to RSP it has been declared MREL or GUNREL, except Al Jazeera, which had an extremely large contingent of editors wanting to declare them GUNREL. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Sorry I misread. My point is several Arab sources which are heavily used on Wikipedia have not been designated unreliable, undermining the argument for systematic bias. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      These all appear to be Western-aligned and/or liberal newspapers, some with serious financial COIs. I do agree that it's a bit imprecise to say Wikipedia's systemic bias is against Arab/Muslim sources as a whole, but the fact that many of the Arab/Muslim sources considered reliable are funded by and/or supportive of Western aligned MENA oil and real estate interests is illustrative of exactly the systemic bias problem that @Vice regent points out. The systematic downgrading of sources critical of Western and Western-aligned perspectives makes Wikipedia more biased and unreliable, and less legitimate to a non-Western audience. Even if the camp of pro-Western sources is broadly more reliable than Russian or Chinese or Iran-aligned sources, excluding the reporting and viewpoint of those sources extensively makes Wikipedia blind when pro-Western sources lie or make an error, which they often do because all media does. Unbandito (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 2 per above. Despite people throwing links in the section below it hard to find evidence of systematic disinformation in the past 20 years. Reporting that Putin said X (in quotes) doesn't constitute disinformation. Being biased against certain Lebanese politicians (most RS have a certain partisan bias) doesn't make it unreliable. VR (Please ping on reply) 18:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 3 per BobFromBrockley pretty much word-for-word. That is, some form of option 2 could be viable if very stringent, but the list of topics for which this source is generally unreliable would probably be too long to be manageable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Idk what number it would be, but I would only use it for something internal Lebanese and non-controversial or for attributed views to Hezbollah's media outlet. Either 2 or 3, whichever fits that statement best. nableezy - 23:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 3 based on the comments from BobFromBrockley and Amigao. There appear to be many instances of sharing disinformation, including from clearly unreliable sources like RT. Plus the fact that it is banned in many countries. Alenoach (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Al-Jazeera is also banned in many countries. Politicians shouldn't get to decide what is or is not reliable.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 3 per Bobfromblockley Andre🚐 00:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 4 I don't see how this is better than Al Mayadeen or RT. Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 2, where the "additional considerations" include not presenting its assertions related to the conflict as factual in wikivoice. Zerotalk 04:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 2-3 based on Chess and others. Should not be used around I/P topic area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 3 (4 for I/P and Jews only) based on the arguments presented, specifically regarding the spread of misinformation/disinformation and hateful conspiracy theories. I think some use as aboutself/for national politics per Chess and co may be a reasonable exception. Use in regards to Israel and Jews (very broadly construed) should be completely avoided. FortunateSons (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 3, per above. --NAADAAN (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 3 per BobFromBrockley. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Discussion (Al-Manar)

    edit
    • almanar.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
    • Comment: Bias and inflamed rhetoric against Israel is NOT a valid reason for !voting options 3/4. Reporting that Israelis evacuated the Twin Towers on 9/11 IS a good reason for !voting options 3/4. I'll post some other examples of misinformation and unreliability here later, in addition to the ones in the discussion further up this page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Here's an example:Reply
      • Schafer, Bret (30 May 2024). "The Russian Propaganda Nesting Doll: How RT is Layered Into the Digital Information Environment". GMFUS. Retrieved 15 November 2024.: we discovered RT content on Al Manar TV, a site owned and operated by Hezbollah. Though not technically a state-backed media outlet, Al Manar is a mouthpiece for a major political and geopolitical player in the Middle East, and thus exists as a politically backed, if not state-backed, channel... We found eight occurrences of RT content reposed to Al Manar, but a manual review of content tagged with “Russia” or “Ukraine” on Al Manar’s website revealed that those articles are sourced primarily, if not exclusively, from RT, Sputnik News, and Tass, all of which are Russian state-controlled outlets. Oddly, many other articles were attributed to “Agencies”, though those too appeared to be sourced from Tass. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
        Are you suggesting we treat a claim from a US based source as a fact? M.Bitton (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
        It depends on what the content they reposted from RT was. Did Al-Manar quote the RT (or Sputnik) for uncontroversial sports news? Or for official statements of Putin? I don't see that as much of a problem.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
        The source says at least some of the content is about Ukraine, so I think that counts as controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      That claim was made by Al-Manar some 20 years ago (shortly after 9/11). Do you have more recent examples of disinformation? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    A UK-based source, also a partisan thinktank so pinch of salt, but a highly respected thinktank:

    A partisan source (in the middle of ongoing war) means propaganda (that they are welcome to feed to their kids). M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Can you offer any concrete evidence that the statement above by the Royal United Services Institute was factually inaccurate? - Amigao (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Skimming it, I don't see any concrete evidence in the article itself to support the claim. Do you? It appears the author is relying on the reader's implicit bias that "inventing news is the norm rather than the exception" in Arabic language media and guilt by association with Iran as evidence of the claim. I don't see any examples of debunked or falsified stories. Unbandito (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    RUSI's statement was a fair one. A more recent example would be Al-Manar's story stating that the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine "officially tops efficacy and safety" standards without anything else backing it up. - Amigao (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Al-Manar's story ... That's a factually incorrect claim! It's not their story, it's clearly attributed to Sputnik. M.Bitton (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    So they are re-publishing COVID-19 disinformation from an unreliable and deprecated source like WP:SPUTNIK. That does not exactly help the reliability of Al-Manar, at least for the purposes of an RfC. Also, here is a March 2022 Al-Manar article that spreads a version of the Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory with bat coronavirus thrown into the mix. - Amigao (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    First things first: you misrepresented a source.
    Second, they can re-publish anything they want, and so long as they attribute it to the original source, it has zero (as in none whatsoever) effect on their reliability.
    Third, you're doing it again: the above source is attributed to the chief spokesman for the The Russian Defense Ministry.
    I have no idea why you're doing this, but it certainly doesn't look good (to be honest, it' quite worrying). M.Bitton (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Re-publishing known vaccine disinformation narratives from WP:DEPRECATED sources has quite a lot to do with a source's editorial judgment and overall reliability for the purposes of an RfC. - Amigao (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Misrepresenting the sources, like you keep doing, is what makes a source unreliable. M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's not necessarily unusual or a sign of poor editorial judgment for a source to cite a deprecated source. Just this morning, I read this article from the FT, which says: Separately his deputy, Brigadier General Ali Fadavi, told Al Mayadeen, a Lebanese television channel close to Iran, that a response would be “inevitable”. In more than 40 years, “we have not left any aggression without a response”, he said. Reliable sources often need to cover what biased or unreliable sources are saying in order to tell the full story. The fact that this guilt by association tactic of "citing an unreliable source = unreliable", which has been used on the RSN to knock sources down like dominoes, isn't even accepted as an actual journalistic standard shows that it's just silly politicking. Unbandito (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Citing a quote from deprecated source, as the FT example does, is quite different from directly re-publishing a deprecated source article verbatim, as Al-Manar frequently does. - Amigao (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    You're being extremely disingenuous. You misrepresented the sources (clearly to push a POV), so do yourself a big favour and give this a break. M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Here is an even more recent 2023 Al-Manar article that directly re-publishes the same WP:SPUTNIK piece. - Amigao (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    ... and attributes it to them. I'm starting to question your motives. M.Bitton (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Re-publishing unreliable sources that the community has long WP:DEPRECATED with attribution does not somehow make a source more reliable for the purposes of an RfC. - Amigao (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Do you honestly believe that the real world cares about some irrelevant WP RfC or the "community" (a handful of editors)? You seem to have forgotten one very important rule: we don't lead, we follow. M.Bitton (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Today Al-Manar has an article on Ukraine verbatim directly copied (with attribution at the bottom) from Tass, a red flag source for us. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Good you can read Amigao’s mind to understand the motivation for his arguments here. But Amigao is correct that translating and reposting an article (as Jerusalem Post does of Walla, as noted in the discussion above, or as Al-Manar) is completely different than citing an article and attributing a claim to it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    When someone keeps misrepresenting the sources (again and again), then I will rightly assume disingenuousness. 22:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That's a fair point that quoting and republishing a source are two different things. However, I would still question why we should take republishing another source as an indication of one source's reliability. We wouldn't typically use republished content on Wikipedia, except perhaps in the case of a paywall on the original source, so it seems unnecessary to me to judge source reliability based on their republications. And we wouldn't make this judgment in the other direction, for example if Al-Manar republished a story from the AP, we wouldn't take that as an indication that they are reliable. If Al-Manar is merely a content aggregator then I suppose we shouldn't use it, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
    What evidence do we have of the reliability or unreliability of Al-Manar's original reporting? Unbandito (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Furthermore, here is a prime example of misrepresentation of sourcing by Al-Manar: Al-Manar claims this article was sourced from Reuters but the article was actually sourced from this one at WP:RT.COM, another deprecated source. - Amigao (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I appreciate your hard work in continuing to analyze the source and build a stronger critique of it. I can't find the Reuters article that Al-Manar claims to have sourced that content from (not to say it doesn't exist, I just can't find it) so that's concerning. However, the Al-Manar article has more material than the RT article, which means at least some of the material must come from a different source. I can't read Arabic outside of the use of translation tools so it's possible that I am missing some nuance here, but the overlapping aspects of the article such as Lukashenko's statement in an interview with Sky News Arabia are not identically phrased (except for the quote itself) as one might expect if the material were republished from RT. So while the Reuters article in question appears to be missing right now, I find the evidence that the article was in fact republished from RT to be insufficient. Even if it were, it's not clear that the information published by RT and allegedly republished by Al-Manar in this case is unreliable, and the material that might be republished is just a quote from a Sky News Arabia interview, so hardly a reflection on either of the sources' reliability. Unbandito (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Al-Manar's article does not have more text in the body than the WP:RT.COM article. They are the same, but Al-Manar claims that it sourced the content from Reuters, which is clearly not the case. Here is the Al-Manar version and the RT version via Internet Archive links for ease of comparison. (Interestingly, Al-Manar does not appear to source other articles from Reuters.) - Amigao (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That's my bad, you're right that the articles are the same, except that the syntax of the line about the quote from the Sky News interview appears to be slightly altered. The "read more" box inside the RT article interfered with my efforts to translate and threw me off.
    That being said, I don't see how this is evidence of systematic unreliability on the part of Al-Manar. If you could demonstrate a pattern of passing off the original reporting of unreliable sources as if they came from reliable sources like Reuters, I would find that more convincing. Unbandito (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    French-based Reporters Without Borders criticised its terrorist designation in 2004, but noted its antisemitism.

    That doesn't make it unreliable. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Once again, more than 20 years ago. Also see weaponization of antisemitism.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Are you accusing RWB of weaponising antisemitism? Why would they want to? BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Mintz, John (22 December 2004). "U.S. Bans Al-Manar, Says TV Network Backs Terror". Washington Post. Retrieved 15 November 2024.: French officials prohibited the network from broadcasting in France, citing what it called al-Manar's anti-Semitic content and appeals to violence. French officials cited al-Manar programs reporting that Jews spread AIDS around the world and that they seek children's blood to bake into Passover matzoh. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      In France, you can bash the Arabs and the Muslims all day long (under the protection of the so-called freedom of speech and bla bla bla), and believe me when I say that they do (they will even honour you for doing so), but the moment your criticize Israel, you get accused of being antisemitic. M.Bitton (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      "Jews spread AIDS around the world and that they seek children's blood to bake into Passover matzoh" is NOT a "criticism of Israel". BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I'm referring to clear theme (when citing the opinions of their enemies who are known for their double standard). In France, you can say about the Arabs and the Muslims and that's fine given that Arab and Muslim bashing is literally a sport. M.Bitton (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Yes, the French state is deeply racist and Islamophobic. That doesn't make it "reliable" to accuse the Jews of the blood libel. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      the French state is deeply racist and Islamophobic so why are paying attention to what it says? M.Bitton (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I am paying attention to what the French Jewish community said. There are other sources for this too in the Al-Manar article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      You mean the CRIF? M.Bitton (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      @Bobfrombrockley can you find Al-Manar articles in the past 20 years that say Jews use blood in Passover? That's clearly antisemitic, but please actually find such articles.VR (Please ping on reply) 18:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      It was a TV series made by a Syrian company, which they screened. So not as straightforward as if they were claiming that in their own content (as they did with Israelis having foreknowledge of 9/11) but it shows you their editorial standards are incompatible with a reliable status. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      They screened a Syrian TV series that some pro-Israel sources don't like. What's that got to do with their reliability as a source? M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      again, it is not “pro-Israel” to say the blood libel and the protocols of the elders of Zion are not the content carried by a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      It's a Syrian TV series that they screened, it's their right to do so. What's that got to do with their reliability as a source? M.Bitton (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Sigh. Yes it’s their right to screen something based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but nonetheless the Protocols were a forgery so doing so indicates unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      That's a baseless claim that nobody can substantiate. What does a TV series (produced in Syria) have to do with al-Manar's reliability? M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I’m confused. It’s widely agreed that the Protocols were a forgery. Numerous RSs say two different series screened on Al-Manar in the 2000s (one Syrian, one Egyptian) were based on the Protocols. So maybe this isn’t a dealbreaker in terms of reliability; it seems that they did subsequently apologise after France banned the station. But I think it’s obvious that it is a data point in the unreliability column. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Who cares about the protocol and whether it is a forgery or a fact? It's a flipping TV series.
      it is a data point in the unreliability column that's another baseless claim that nobody can substantiate.
      I repeat the question that you ignored: what does a TV series (produced in Syria to boot) have to do with al-Manar's reliability? M.Bitton (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Was this TV Syrian TV series a drama or presented as factual? If a channel has broadcast a syndicated drama which contains blood libel and the allegation around AIDS, I feel all of its output needs to be looked at carefully in terms of reliability. Propaganda of this nature is a strong indicator of extreme antisemitic conspiracist views which may also be present in its factual output, even though no unreliable claim has technically been made. However, if it has broadcast a syndicated program presenting this as factual information then it becomes immediately unreliable for our purposes. If we aren't using the Daily Fail, and we can in good faith argue about the Telegraph's reliability based on them publishing a true story that was somewhat litter-tray adjacent, then there's no way we should be using a source that parrots blood libel.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Very well put, and good question, which the sources are vague about. It appears to be a docudrama, but Al-Manar initially seemed to think it was factual: Al-Manar’s program director, Nasser Akhdar, stressed that the series was “purely historical” and that it was based on some 250 sources written by Jews. The program covers the history of the Jews and the Zionists between 1812 and 1948, he said, and underlines the Jewish emigration to Palestine, the Balfour Declaration, and the European policies regarding this issue during that period. “It offers a clear image of what the Zionists have committed in the social, political, and ideological fields,” Akhdar said. “It is a voice against all those who wish to hide the truth.” He said US complaints were an attempt to “misguide public opinion,” adding that this was part of the US strategy of hegemony over the media to “cancel other people’s opinions.”[59] It might be a point in Al-Manar's favour that they later removed the show from their archive and said they erred in showing it and that they never saw it before they broadcast it (although I am not sure that's been reported by anyone other than Counterpunch, an unreliable source). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      this was part of the US strategy of hegemony over the media to “cancel other people’s opinions.” it certainly looks that way.
      When the US complained to Lebanon over the series, Lebanese officials refused to interfere and one of them said:

      "The United States has a strange conception of freedom of expression... What would they say if we tried to interfere with the way Fox News portrays Arabs, Muslims or Palestinians?"

      — Lebanese official
      M.Bitton (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      If a channel has broadcast a syndicated drama which contains blood libel and the allegation around AIDS, I feel all of its output needs to be looked at carefully in terms of reliability I see, so channels in the west can distort history and portray the Muslims and Arabs as terrorists in their dramas, while hiding behind the cherished freedom of speech, but the rest of the word has to abide by some fictitious standard that only the west has the key to. Fascinating. M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      We deem Western sources that repeat racist conspiracy theories unreliable too (Boynamedsue mentioned the Daily Mail; we also rate the Lebanese minister's example, Fox News, as an unreliable source). I think there's a difference, though, between perpetrating stereotypes that are deep in a culture (as the majority of Western AND non-Western sources do) and repeating actual conspiracy theories such as Jews deliberately spread AIDS or Jews kill Christian children to harvest their blood for ritual purposes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      No, we certainly don't judge the reliability of western sources based on the TV series and movies that they screen. M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      If an Arab drama series portrayed a group of Israelis, or even Jews, as nefarious villains sabotaging a society, I agree that would be a pretty perfect analogy to what Western media does to Arabs, and I wouldn't say it had any effect on how we should evaluate news output. However, if a Western channel broadcast a drama that said, say, Arab Muslims worship Baphomet and train children to suicide bomb Jews as they believe (and the following is a deliberately offensive example) their inherent, irrational and motiveless antisemitism is more important than the lives of their children, then we would have a more precise analogy to the question of blood libel.
    I am a strong opponent of Israel's aggression against Palestine and Lebanon, and I am disgusted by the despicable attempts by various ghouls to suggest that any mention of the IDF and West Bank Settlers' mass murder of children is equivalent to blood libel. However, blood libel is an incredibly serious thing. It is not hard to find out that Jews absolutely do not mix blood with flour to make special biscuits, or that this belief has had terrible consequences in the past. Anybody not prepared to make that little bit of effort will have, in my view, question marks over their reliability..Boynamedsue (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    if a Western channel broadcast a drama that said... Have you ever noticed that the TV series "Homeland" (based on an Israeli television drama) that was being screened all over the place is actually Islamophobic and Arabophobic? That's just an example; in fact, Islamophobia and Arabophobia have become so common in the western media (especially, in the last two decades) that one doesn't even notice them, i.e., they've become the acceptable norm.
    What we have here is a clear case of double standard, where freedom of expression seems to only be acceptable when it comes from the west. Franky, it beggars belief that a country such as the US (the "champion of free speech") would try to censor a TV series in another country. M.Bitton (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I've never seen Homeland, so I don't know whether its level of Islamophobia would be equivalent to blood libel. But it is made by Fox 21, whose sister news network we DON'T USE for politics or science.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It doesn't matter who made it, it was screened everywhere and it received many awards. Like I said, that was just an example amongst the many. This all comes down to one thing and one simple choice: one either supports freedom of expression or one doesn't. M.Bitton (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Oh, I'll make this crystal clear. I absolutely do not support freedom of expression. I have used physical violence in the past to prevent nazis from freely expressing their views, and would do so again. However, even if I believed in freedom of expression, freedom to express your views is not freedom to be accepted as a reliable source on wikipedia. Have a look at WP:RS for the criteria which apply.--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I will make this crystal clear: the reliability of a source doesn't depend on what TV series it screens (WP:RS doesn't say otherwise). M.Bitton (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think the current relevance of this sort of content comes through when you look at how they report Israeli "organ harvesting", mixing reliable and unreliable sources and misrepresenting both to shape a narrative echoing the Protocols, or how they describe settlers engaged in "Talmudic rituals" at al-Aqsa to describe something that isn't actually Talmudic but again fits an antisemitic narrative (in contrast, e.g., to Al-Jazeera who use quote marks when reporting this). BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Are any or all of these metal-oriented music journalism sites reliable? No Clean Singing, Teeth of the Divine, Metal Underground, The Metal Onslaught?

    edit
    Latest comment: 4 days ago20 comments5 people in discussion

    Rather than open a bunch of separate discussions, I thought I'd get all of these out of the way with one large discussion. Specifically, the question is which, if any, of the following sources are generally reliable as sources for music journalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3family6 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    No Clean Singing

    edit

    I was actually surprised that this one wasn't already listed at the albums sources list. I wasn't sure of its years ago, but since then it's become a well-used source on here, including on articles that have passed FA review. And I believe this is because of the reputation of the site, which I'll get into below. I almost was bold and went ahead and added it to the list, but I figured I should make sure a discussion takes place as there has never been a formal discussion regarding this source apart from a brief mention 14 years ago.

    - It has an (albeit small) editorial and writing staff: Islander, Alexis, and IntoTheDarkness

    - It has a good reputation, which indicates fact-checking and accuracy: this minor mention by MetalSucks, an interview by The Guardian, a listing as one of the Top 10 metal music resources by LA Weekly, and an inclusion in a book (page 24) jointly published by A-R Editions and the Music Library Association.

    My personal verdict is  Y Yes, with flying colors, it is reliable for music journalism Edit:  N it is potentially reliable for self-published expert opinion, but not for BLP purposes--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3family6 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    But, what you call "by The Guardian" is the blog section of the publication where they invited people to submit their blog to them to be considered for an interview, kind of like cute pets thing local media and papers do and if chosen, those pets get featured. It does clarify that it's a blog Graywalls (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That's fair, it's not the same as a fully independent news report.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No, sorry, I don't see it. The MetalSucks and LA Weekly listings are nice, but I think that's about all you've got, and it's not much to go on. The about page never uses the word "edit", and makes no apparent mention of an editorial policy. None of the (current or former) writing staff beyond Andy Synn use a recognizable name so it's hard to search for them, but nothing about the descriptions of them suggests they have any significant qualifications beyond this site, and my search for Synn showed that he likely doesn't. The about page does include them self-referencing as a blog founded by a group of friends, which can be something that turns into a professional publication, but that isn't a guarantee, and I don't see anything here that suggests it happened here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Doesn't address the editorial and credential concerns, and not as strong as the LA Weekly listing, but: it is referenced in this academic book for a (salty) opinion on djent; is mentioned on page 4 of this journal article, along with some other blog sources - but as some (Angry Metal Guy, Grizzly Butts) I think are still unreliable for music journalism purposes on Wikipedia, I'm not sure that this means much; and this magazine entry (pg. 83) mentions the site helping a song to popularity - not really helpful for reliability, but perhaps notability (which is irrelevant to this noticeboard). I'm not sure this helps at all toward reliability, but I figured I'd at least document it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    In light of the discussions I've had about publishers writing in their own publications, and the small team involved here, it's basically a group blog or, even if not, otherwise essentially self-published material. This isn't necessarily always unreliable for secondary coverage music journalism, but at minimum should never be used for BLP statements.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I've always assumed No Clean Singing to be a blog which I would never use as a reliable source for notability and any original news published would have to be corroborated by a reliable source and cited to that source. As QuietHere points out, the lack of a visible editorial structure is telling. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Teeth of the Divine

    edit

    I'd always assumed that this one was unreliable, even though there's no discussions saying so and it isn't included on the Unreliable sources list at WP:A/S.

    - It has a professional editorial and writing staff, some with impressive credentials. The site claims Metal Maniacs, Decibel, Resound, Metal Edge, Hails & Horns, Unrestrained!, Exclaim!, Outburn, Blistering, DigitalMetal and MetalReview. I can't confirm all of those, especially since they don't clearly indicate who wrote for those publications (a knock against the source, imo), and some aren't necessarily reliable, but some of those are significant publications (a big positive to the source, imo). I could confirm that the site founder, Eric Thomas, worked for Metal Maniacs and now for Hails & Horns.

    - It does have some usage by other sources, an indicator toward a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Some interviews from the site had excerpts re-published at Blabbermouth.net - here and here. Presuming that No Clean Signing is reliable, which imo seems very likely given the positive coverage of it, NCS calling it "one of the Internet’s leading metal e-zines" I think indicates a very positive reputation.

    My personal verdict is  Y Yes, it is reliable for music journalism.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Did you even read NCS's about page? https://www.nocleansinging.com/about/ Completely biased, POV fanzine and more or less a one person show blog. One thing you’ll notice pretty quickly is that we don’t publish negative reviews, and we very rarely publish any other kind of writing that slags bands or their music — though sometimes we do make an exception for big-name egomaniacs who can’t keep their mouths shut.. Graywalls (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    See that sub-section. I agree, and even already updated WP:ALBUMS/S to reflect the consensus.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Metal Underground

    edit

    This is another one that I've long presumed was not reliable. There are no discussions of it that I can find, and it's not mentioned one way or the other at all at WP:ALBUMS/S.

    - It does have a professional editorial and writing staff

    - There are some mentions of it in established RS that can indicate a reputation for reliability: MetalSucks: [63], [64], [65]; Metal Injection: [66]; Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles [67]. Again, presuming NCS is reliable, NCS mentions how the site put together a tribute compilation: [68]. However, I don't think the NCS coverage here or there, as it doesn't really get the content of the site, unlike those other examples.

    My personal verdict is - I don't know. Maybe someone more familiar with it can weigh in.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    The Metal Onslaught

    edit

    This one I only discovered recently, although it's been used on here for at least ten years - but in a questionable way. It mostly was used by an editor who was just blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Some of the articles it was used on are closely affiliated with the source, as a band member was a writer and site manager for the online publication. I don't know if that automatically precludes reliability, but it raises a question.

    - They have an editorial staff.

    I cannot find any citations of it in other RSes

    My personal verdict is  N No, it is not reliable as a secondary independent source for music journalism--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    • I would like to mention another possible source for heavy metal - Heavy Blog has a clearly disclosed editorial board, and is independent of any given band or publisher. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Good to know. I've encountered that one.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      "this website has always been and likely will be for the foreseeable future a volunteer enthusiast-run website." In other words, fanzine with the apparent interest of causing the purchase of merch to occur from its contents. Obviously, there's a difference between Wine & Food magazine with a board of professional trained critics vs a weekend gathering of local farmers who do tasting contest of local farmers/each others' produce and commenting on them even if they both have a name list. Graywalls (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    And it has been added 100+ times, but rarely added by anyone but Metalworker14. They have been chronically introducing this source into numerous articles from 2017 to 2021. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/themetalonslaught.com Graywalls (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Unheralded Victory: The Defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, 1961-1973

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago71 comments8 people in discussion

    On Phoenix Program we read "Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented." There was a talk page discussion over this and I feel one editor is WP:STONEWALLING and not being elaborate on why he seeks to keep this source. The citation is in wikivoice and attributed to Mark Woodruff in his book Unheralded Victory: The Defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, 1961-1973. However, on page 64 of his book, he writes that "This American contribution to the Phung Hoang Program was officially born on December 20, 1967, under the operation name, "Phoenix," so that wikivoice citation in the article of him is obviously inaccurate. Also, the title ("Unheralded Victory: The Defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army") alone of the indicates the source is biased as it tries to claim that the U.S. actually won the Vietnam War were it not for political opposition to the war (see: Vietnam stab-in-the-back myth).

    According to Woodruff's publisher, he "enlisted in the Marine Corps in July 1967, serving in Vietnam with Foxtrot Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment from December 1967 to December 1968. After leaving the Marine Corps, he received his B.A. and M.A. in psychology from Pepperdine University in California. He is now a lieutenant commander in the Royal Australian Navy and a psychologist with the Vietnam Veterans Counseling Service in Perth, Australia." So he's a Vietnam veteran who later worked as a psychologist. It seems like his only notability on the topic is that he's a WP:PRIMARY source, being a Vietnam vet, and it doesn't appear that he has any credentials in writing about history.

    Corroborating that Woodruff is an unreliable source, actual historians have been critical of Woodruff. For example, James H. Willbanks wrote that Woodruff's book "Seeks to provide a revisionist military history of the war and to demonstrate in his opinion that the war was won militarily before the United States unilaterally withdrew from the conflict. The author does not sufficiently address why the United States became involved in Southeast Asia in the first place." While, historian Christopher Levesque wrote in his doctoral dissertation that Woodruff made erroneous claims (p. 25) and "ignores the individual experiences of the majority of the soldiers who voluntarily spoke to reporters, participated in ad hoc war crimes hearings, or contacted their congressmen" (p. 26). In sum, I think it's quite obvious that Woodruff is clearly an unreliable source and should not be cited on Wikipedia, especially not in wikivoice but I would like to formalize this by establishing a consensus. Skornezy (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    It's clear this source shouldn't be cited. Remsense ‥ 论 06:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Putting aside the bad faith accusations of me WP:STONEWALLING and the general non-neutral wording of this request. I'll address the salient issues. Woodruff is the author of 2 books about the Vietnam War, the fact that he doesn't have a degree in military history or claim to be a military historian is no more relevant than for any other author of a military book. Rather we need to look at the quality of the source itself and what reviews it has received. Willbanks says it "Seeks to provide a revisionist military history of the war and to demonstrate in his opinion that the war was won militarily before the United States unilaterally withdrew from the conflict." that is absolutely true and reflects a commonly heard view that the US won the war militarily but lost politically. The critique that "The author does not sufficiently address why the United States became involved in Southeast Asia in the first place" is fair but irrelevant, the focus Woodruff chose for the book is the military defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, not why the US became involved in Indochina, a huge topic addressed in numerous other books. Christopher J. Levesque has a Doctorate in History, but does not appear to be a published author and works as a university librarian, so is he a "historian"? Levesque's criticism of Woodruff's book centers around war crimes (the topic of Levesque's dissertation: NOT JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS: AVOIDING AND REPORTING ATROCITIES DURING THE VIETNAM WAR). Woodruff argues that US atrocities were not widespread in Vietnam, Levesque argues otherwise quoting sources like Nick Turse. This is a topic where a wide range of views exist. There were only a few proven massacres committed by the US, but plenty of accusations of other US massacres and war crimes. So Levesque's criticism of the book simply reflects that debate and is not sufficient to undermine the reliability of the entire book. FWIW the book has 4.5 stars from 52 reviews on Amazon. Perhaps historian @Ed Moise has a view? Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Again, why is the fact that a book exists a testament of its reliability? Remsense ‥ 论 08:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "Again"? When have I ever made that assertion? Mztourist (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Remsense is right, both here and his inputs on the Phoenix Program talk page. Mztourist has not adequately explained why Woodruff should be considered a reliable source, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Just because Woodruff authored two books doesn't make him notable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, especially for people without zero relevant credentials like Woodruff. That actual historians consider his book "revisionist military history" (WP:FRINGE) that makes erroneous claims and ignores testimony that conflicts with his arguments confirms that he's not a reliable source. Levesque is a PhD and an adjunct instructor of history at Pensacola State College and the University of Charleston, yes, he's a historian, has been published in reliable sources on topics related to the U.S. military, and is infinitely more qualified to write on this topic than Woodruff. The fact that you have to resort to Amazon reviews of all things to try to assert that Woodruff is reliable, when he clearly isn't, just proves that you're grasping for straws (for the record, there are books that promote the Flat Earth conspiracy theory with 4.8 stars on Amazon). This shouldn't even have to be explained to you, you've been editing this website for nearly 15 years. You should have the WP:COMPETENCE to know when sources are reliable and unreliable. Skornezy (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Your argument seems to be that someone is a reliable source for historical claims by virtue of having written a history book, so I cannot come to any other conclusion. Remsense ‥ 论 09:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Your interpretation of my argument is incorrect. Meanwhile you haven't provided any cogent argument to support your assertion that "It's clear this source shouldn't be cited." Mztourist (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    You can buy 5 star Amazon reviews. You can also buy 1 star Amazon reviews to send to the competition. Polygnotus (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Exactly. Amazon reviews are not reliable sources and should never be used to assess sources. Skornezy (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Which is why I said "FWIW". You should have the WP:COMPETENCE to understand that. Mztourist (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Skornezy addressing your comments above about Woodruff, I have never claimed that he is notable. You say that he has "zero relevant credentials". Have you ever heard of Mark Bowden? He doesn't have a degree in history, nor claim to be a historian. So does that make Black Hawk Down (book) and his book about the Battle of Huế not reliable? That is your (and Remsense's) argument. Levesque hasn't written any books, he has 9 publications to his credit (4 book reviews and 5 articles) of which 3 book reviews and 2 articles relate to military issues, so hardly a heavyweight military historian. Meanwhile Willbanks describing his book as "revisionist military history" is not the same as it being WP:FRINGE as you assert. Mztourist (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "I have never claimed that he is notable."
    All the reason to not cite him.
    "Have you ever heard of Mark Bowden?"
    Bowden is a journalist, Woodruff is a random soldier that engages in erroneous claims and revisionism.
    "Levesque hasn't written any books, he has 9 publications to his credit (4 book reviews and 5 articles) of which 3 book reviews and 2 articles relate to military issues, so hardly a heavyweight military historian."
    So? He is still infinitely more qualified for his views on Vietnam than Woodruff.
    "Meanwhile Willbanks describing his book as "revisionist military history" is not the same as it being WP:FRINGE as you assert."
    Being revisionist means being in opposition to the consensus historiography. Coupled with the fact that Woodruff has zero qualifications, has been criticized by people with actual credentials, yes, he's WP:FRINGE and unreliable. Skornezy (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Also, I'm not sure how the "FWIW" qualifier makes any difference since Amazon reviews are completely unreliable. Skornezy (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Polygnotus Can I get your input on whether you think Woodruff is a reliable source? Skornezy (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Meh, I am not very bright. Polygnotus (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I put one sentence in about Amazon reviews and look at how much of your "rebuttal" focussed on that. An author doesn't need to be personally notable for their book to be reliable! Yes you just keep making the same assertions that Woodruff is an unqualified nobody. Revisionist is not the same as Fringe, you need to learn the difference. Meanwhile the foreword was written by General James L. Jones. Dale Dye wrote "Mark Woodruff's book is an inspired - and long overdue - re-examination..." Joseph L. Galloway wrote "Mark Woodruff's Unheralded Victory is a refreshing look at America's experience in Vietnam." Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Three other figures with no relevant credentials as historians! Galloway comes the closest as a professional journalist, but it's pretty clear to me that Woodruff's work is not taken seriously by professional historians. Remsense ‥ 论 10:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Woodruff is not a notable author on Vietnam as he has zero qualifications; we don't just include the writings of random non-experts because WP:DUE. You're ignoring that and WP:STONEWALLING as you always do.
    "Revisionist is not the same as Fringe, you need to learn the difference."
    It has been explained to you many times why he is: the theories he promotes; his selective use of testimony; and the erroneous claims he makes.
    "Meanwhile the foreword was written by General James L. Jones. Dale Dye wrote "Mark Woodruff's book is an inspired - and long overdue - re-examination..." Joseph L. Galloway wrote "Mark Woodruff's Unheralded Victory is a refreshing look at America's experience in Vietnam."
    As Remsense has pointed out, none of those people have relevant credentials as historians. Jones is a U.S. military general who most recently served as President Obama's National Security Advisor; Dye is a military officer who advises Hollywood; and Galloway was a war correspondent during the Vietnam War. Skornezy (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    What it's worth is nothing at all. Remsense ‥ 论 10:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    So a 4 star Marine general, a Vietnam veteran and widely known expert on military matters (Dye) and the author of We Were Soldiers Once… and Young are each worthless compared to the views of the author of 3 book reviews and 2 articles related to military issues? Right. Mztourist (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Obviously, yes. I'm glad we're starting to understand each other. Remsense ‥ 论 10:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Obviously no. Meanwhile Skornezy I suggest you actually read WP:INDISCRIMINATE, because it doesn't say what you clearly think it says. Mztourist (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    My bad. The actual policy is WP:DUE. I corrected my mistake. Skornezy (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    But you were so certain of it...Mztourist (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    And I can say you're being certain about of a lot of incorrect things. Your quibbling is silly. Skornezy (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Also its not appropriate to correct your comment after someone has responded to it, you should have struck out WP:INDISCRIMINATE and replaced it with WP:DUE. But it obviously wasn't a simple mistake, you clearly thought that it said something different. Adopting DUE it is appropriate to keep Woodruff.Mztourist (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "But it obviously wasn't a simple mistake, you clearly thought that it said something different."
    You're not a mind reader.
    You said it repeatedly, may I remind you of WP:COMPETENCE which you love throwing at me. Mztourist (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I incorrectly cited it one time when I meant to cite WP:DUE. My other citation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE is completely correct; we shouldn't include Woodruff just because he has written 2 books on the topic.
    Why are you quibbling? Skornezy (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "Adopting DUE it is appropriate to keep Woodruff."
    No, it isn't. Not for the historical assertions he makes. Skornezy (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yes it is it just has to say "according to Mark Woodruff" Mztourist (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No, because we say "according to" even for established academics when it comes to certain analyses, which Mark Woodruff is certainly not. Woodruff is unreliable for facts on Vietnam, attributed or not. We can use him for his attributed opinions, not for the facts he states. Skornezy (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No, because he's not a reliable source for claims of historical fact. An attributed statement of fact is not magically laundered into mere opinion. The standard for subject experts we would attribute specific claims to is greater, not less, because we have to be really sure we care about what they think to be the case. Remsense ‥ 论 13:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    As detailed below, it can be used for attributed opinion, so a statement that "according to Mark Woodruff" or "Mark Woodruff opines that..." Mztourist (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Woodruff's book is reliable for Woodruff's opinions, not Woodruff's historical assertions. The citation of Woodruff on Phoenix Program to state "Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented" is not reliable, even if we add attribution because this is Woodruff making a historical assertion, not merely stating his opinion. Skornezy (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No, you've ploughed ahead with the same fallacy I just outlined. Here are three examples.
    1. Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented. This is a statement of fact. It is either true, or it is not.
    2. Mark Woodruff opines that Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented. This, however, is nonsense. That's not his opinion, or any higher analysis on Woodruff's part.
    3. According to Mark Woodruff, Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented. This is once more unambiguously a statement of fact, we're just attributing it to a particular source. They would need to be a particularly reliable source for this to make sense to do in context.
    How is it reasonable to conclude someone isn't a reliable source for historical claims, but think citing their "opinion" that does nothing but draw factual conclusions about history is solving the problem? Remsense ‥ 论 15:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Remsense Skornezy originally posted at 06:35 and you said at 06:39 that "It's clear this source shouldn't be cited". What research did you undertake in those 4 minutes that informed that view? Mztourist (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I consulted the Delphi oracle. Quit flailing, it's unbecoming. Remsense ‥ 论 12:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Flailing? You clearly just read the original post and agreed with it, nothing else. Mztourist (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Was I supposed to agree with you instead? They wrote it rather clearly so it was easy to parse, verify, and sign off on, imagine that. Remsense ‥ 论 13:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Imagine doing some independent research. How can you claim to have verified it inside 4 minutes? Mztourist (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm going to drop my previous snark and try to state plainly that there was no need to, as the the facts presented were sufficient for me to make up my mind. As you haven't disputed their veracity and have only made counterarguments I find categorically uncompelling, it seems my judgment was alright. Remsense ‥ 论 15:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    You made up your mind in 4 minutes with no research; you were never going to be open to counterarguments. Other users here haven't adopted the same absolutist position that as Woodruff isn't a historian the book has no merit. Mztourist (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Everyone else that has stated an opinion has concurred that you clearly can't use this book to cite statements of fact. Remsense ‥ 论 15:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Don't cite this book for facts. Mottezen (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    maybe chill out a bit and wait for outsiders (not me) to form an opinion. Polygnotus (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Yeah, you're right. This back and forth is going nowhere. Skornezy (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Some thoughts in no particular order, as unpicking the thread is a chore.
      The views of historians in matters of history are more useful than those of military veterans. This is in part because the views of military veterans will be primary sources and historians are trained in interpreting such sources (secondary sources are preferred).
      A work having been criticised by experts does count against it's reliability. Amazon reviews do not add to a sources reliability in anyway. That Woodruff has been previously published in the area does add to the work reliability, but it's one factor among many.
      That something is a commonly held view is only important if it's a commonly held view by experts in the specific area (historians in this case). That an opposing view is held by others might be worth discussion in the appropriate article (Vietnam War#War crimes for instance), if it is attested in other reliable sources, but it might not be due inclusion in every article. Minority views should be included, but only if they do not give undue weight (but that's NPOV not reliability).
      The work is reliable for the attributed opinion of Woodruff but I don't believe it should be used to state contentious facts in wikivoice, especially if those facts are in opposition to other scholarly works. Inclusion of Woodruff's opinion are a matter of NPOV and should be discussed on the articles talk page. Just because something can be verified doesn't mean it should be included, rather verifiability is required of included content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      OK thanks. So from my understanding, Woodruff's book is unreliable for contentious historical assertions, but it is reliable to document what his opinions are. Is that correct? That makes sense to me and it's sort of what I've been trying to articulate on the talk page, but the talk page hasn't gone anywhere which is why I've taken it here. I can't edit that page for now, but it seems to me that the wikivoice citation of Woodruff should 100% be removed. Skornezy (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Pinging @ActivelyDisinterested Skornezy (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Thank you for your input ActivelyDisinterested. I have now consulted my copy of the book, it has 291 pages of body text, 29 pages of endnotes and an 8 page bibliography. Mztourist (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      And what has that got to do with anything? It could have a zillion pages, 400 pages of endnotes, 40 bibliography pages, and it wouldn't change anything. Numbers in no way effect the reliability of a source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Skornezy That would be my take on it, whether his opinion should be included is a NPOV matter, see WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:BALASP, etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    A key question on the suitability of a revisionist work is whether its arguments are accepted by subsequent works. My initial impression is that the scholarly community hasn't taken much notice of it. The Journal of Military History didn't review it; it did list it (with dozens of other works) in its "Books received" section in its April 2000 issue. The editor included this note: "Attempts to debunk myths created by propaganda about American involvement in Vietnam by analyzing American military successes."[1] The book is 25 years old now. If the scholarly consensus hasn't moved toward it since then, it's probably not usable for anything other than attributed opinion. Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Thank you. Can you please advise exactly how "Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented." should be rewritten as an attributed opinion of Woodruff's as Skornezy and Remsense are unlikely to agree anything that I write. Mztourist (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    You can't, because that's not an opinion and cannot be laundered into one. It is still an unambiguous statement of fact. It is not my opinion that the Louvre is a museum in Paris. Remsense ‥ 论 15:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Remsense That wikivoice citation of Woodruff isn't even accurate because on page 64 of his book Woodruff writes that "American contribution to the Phung Hoang Program was officially born on December 20, 1967, under the operation name, "Phoenix," which is completely in line with Osborn's Vietnam military service. According to historian Alfred W. McCoy, in page 98 of his book Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation: To discredit such damaging testimony, the U.S. Army Intelligence Command conducted a thorough investigation of Osborn’s charges. The results were released in a declassified summary by William Colby during his 1973 confirmation hearings for the post of CIA director. Although the Army’s classified report nitpicked many of his secondary details, it did not challenge Osborn’s overall sense of Phoenix’s systematic brutality—an assessment confirmed by both eye-witness accounts and official studies.
    Similarly, historian Jeremy Kuzmarov wrote on page 257 in a book called Decolonization and Conflict: Colonial Comparisons and Legacies edited by fellow academics Gareth Curless and Martin Thomas: during testimony to the U.S. Congress, "CIA director William Colby conceded that much of what Osborn said was likely to be true," despite "attempts by conservatives to discredit Osborn’s character." McCoy also quotes Colby (who headed Phoenix) as saying "various of the things that Mr. Osborn alleges might have happened". (p. 99)
    Both of these PhD historians directly conflict with Woodruff; if Woodruff really said that "Osborne [sic] served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented," then how was this missed by these PhD historians, by CIA director Colby, and by the U.S. Army investigation that was seeking to discredit Osborn? This is just further confirmation that Woodruff is an unreliable source for historical assertions! Skornezy (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    References

    1. ^ Turner, Blair P. (2000). "Books Received". The Journal of Military History. 64 (2): 615–622. JSTOR 120327.
    Remsense and Skornezy you have already made your views on Woodruff abundantly clear. The question was for Mackensen, not you. Mztourist (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Why do you think this is a statement of opinion? Woodruff doesn't say it's his opinion, he states it as fact! You would be putting words in his mouth, you realize. I don't think you should jump to any other topic requiring the time of others to reply before you answer this question directly and explain what you think the distinction could actually be.Remsense ‥ 论 07:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not sure I really want to touch on the reliability of the book, but reading the paragraph as it stands currently, I have to question why a statement about that would belong on an article that, as far as I can tell, is not about Osborn. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Because Osborn makes some shocking and graphic claims about war crimes that are included on Phoenix Program, but his credibility has been questioned. regards Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    OK, well I don't think very loudly implying that someone's credibility is questionable is something we should be engaging in on what is nominally supposed to be an encyclopedia article instead of, I don't know, maybe the talk page or something. If it's explicitly stated in a reliable source, then maybe there's a case to include it in the article, but implying it seems like an attempt to get around the policy on original research, whether or not that's actually the case. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Woodruff basically says that Osborn lied about abuses he says he witnessed as part of the Phoenix Program when he testified to Congress, pretty much accusing him of perjury. I think the section is undue because there were others who testified to these abuses as well, not just Osborn. Skornezy (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It really sounds like we should just be citing secondary sources that do the picking of the primary sources for us then. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That's really what this RSN is about. Is Woodruff a reliable source for when Osborn served in Vietnam and so what Osborn claimed to have seen. We have other RS that question Osborn's credibility. Mztourist (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The RSN is on whether Woodruff, a non-expert, arguably WP:PRIMARY source who has been criticized for revisionism, making erroneous claims, and ignoring conflicting testimony is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards or not. Skornezy (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Whether we have a reliable source for time of service is not something I would consider relevant unless a source also explicitly uses that to make some secondary claim related to, specifically, the Phoenix Program, and said other source is reliable for that secondary claim. What would be even better, and what I would probably encourage if acceptable to people who actually want to edit the article, is to refocus on secondary sources that provide a synthesis of multiple primary sources rather than focusing on quotes from one or two specific people. Which are the best sources out of those secondary sources?
    If that question cannot be determined, I feel that would be a better use of this board's time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm unfamiliar with the topic area, so let me ask a brief ground-clearing question. As I read the article, K. Barton Osborne claims to have witnessed torture under the auspices of the Phoenix Program. Is the purpose of the citation to Woodruff to undercut Osborne by placing his service in South Vietnam prior to the implementation of the Phoenix Program? Mackensen (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Pretty much; he's basically accusing Osborn of lying. But elsewhere Woodruff says "American contribution to the Phung Hoang Program was officially born on December 20, 1967, under the operation name, 'Phoenix'" which is perfectly in line with Osborn's military service so I'm not even sure if Woodruff is even being cited correctly in the section. Skornezy (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Mackensen that is correct and Woodruff is not the only source that questions Orborne's credibility. Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Is there a better source than Woodruff that does so? The citations above that mention William Colby's testimony would seem to render Woodruff's criticism a moot point. Mackensen (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Multiple Sources for 15.ai

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 days ago9 comments6 people in discussion

    I removed these sources[69][70][71][72] from the article 15.ai that were being used to support statements about 15.ai because they are blog content that seemed like an advertisements. I remain unsure of their suitability as sources because they are essentially advertisements for products which could be considered competitors of 15.ai (though 15.ai is now defunct). The sources have been reinserted since they are relevant figures in the Speech AI scene and have been argued counts as WP:EXPERTSPS. I was hoping to get broader opinion on its suitability considering they are advertorial in nature. The sources are currently being used to verify a wide variety of claims about 15.ai throughout the article. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Well, I can't see any prior publications for Weitzman (the second link here), and they're the only easily identifiable author as far as I can tell. I also struggle to think of any situation that we'd consider spammy blogs a good source even if there were no dispute to factual accuracy, not having a source is almost preferable. An initial review indicates that most of the statements they're used for are already WP:CITEKILLed, so I really see no reason why they might be considered appropriate to add. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The play.ht one is especially bad. It is simply an ad for their services. Polygnotus (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The sources are okay as long the information sourced from it are non-advertorial. All of the links above discuss 15.ai before going onto advertise other services (to mention, Elevlabs, Speechify and Resemble are notable enough to warrant their own articles) so as long as the advertisement parts are ignored, it’s citable.
    It’s not any different from a New York Times article having an ad for a New York Times subscription in it. 172.56.77.163 (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The difference, is that the New York Times is not self-published and their publication process has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy among other reliable sources. Even then, we still wouldn't consider the contents of an ad for the NYT published on the NYT or elsewhere reliable for anything other than what the NYT wants to say about itself. Ads receive far less editorial oversight (i.e., essentially none) than even op-eds and editorials, which we already don't consider reliable even if they're published in a much better source. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Sure, but these sources are not advertising 15.ai, which makes it valid. In fact, they talk about 15.ai from a neutral stance and its impact on the voice space before transitioning into an advertisement for their own service. For that reason I believe the New York Times analogy is apt. 172.56.73.59 (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Ads on the NYT are reliable for limited content in line with ABOUTSELF for the NYT, they are not reliable for statements about third parties. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No, an advertisement is not a reliable source for claims about the advertiser's competition. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Not for nothing, but these sources also appear to potentially be a case of WP:REFLOOP. See [73]. Speechify is the oldest extant one, published November 19, 2023. The revision I checked it against is from November 1, 2023. As the check demonstrates, Speechify in some instances uses language verbatim from the article such as an assortment of fictional characters from a variety of media sources and otherwise makes small tweaks and changes to the language such as Launched in early 2020, 15.ai began as a proof of concept of the democratization of voice acting and dubbing using technology. Its gratis and non-commercial nature (with the only stipulation being that the project be properly credited when used) vs Speechify's The platform was designed for the democratization of voice acting and dubbing using technology and allowed anyone to use it for free, with the only stipulation being that the project had to be for non-commercial use only, and the platform had to be properly credited when used. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Deprecation of Discogs

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 days ago9 comments6 people in discussion
    Nipping RFC, this is unnecessary. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Headbomb huh? What do you mean "Nipping"? Graywalls (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    See wikt:nip/wikt:nip in the bud. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Should we depreciate the use of Discogs as unreliable source, as per previous discussion at 2019 RfC, there is a current consensus against discouraging and deprecating the use of Discogs as a source on Wikipedia. 45.221.76.126 (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Yes, it shouldn't be cited as a source. The scans of the cover art are fine to reference and cite as AV media. I do think linking as an external link should be encouraged, as exhaustive tracklisting of versions of an album, and exhaustive personnel lists, are discouraged on Wikipedia and thus Discogs is the appropriate resource for that information.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Though the closer states that there was "consensus against discouraging and deprecating the use of Discogs as a source on Wikipedia", reading through the RfC it seems specifically that the use of Discogs as an external link was supported, but use of it as a citation is discouraged.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    As a frequent user of {{Discogs master}}, I fully agree with 3family6. Discogs is a user-generated source, so it should not be used (I routinely remove it), and when it could be used, you can just cite physical copies with {{cite AV media notes}}. But as an external link, it's incredibly useful. Listing 20 different versions of an album and minor differences between them, especially if there are no reliable sources discussing it, is outside of the scope of Wikipedia. But that's what Discogs excels at. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 15:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I've nipped the RFC as pointless. Consensus is clear on Discog. No as a source, fine as an external link. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    There's an [unclosed RFC] related to this topic from two months ago, archived without action. Safrolic (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Use of court documents for basic info?

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

    I'm currently trying to improve the article for Kiana Tom. It's in pretty dire shape - it was filled with promotional puffery. I've removed some of the worst, but it still needs work in establishing notability. (If anyone wants to help, please do!)

    I think I can probably do this, but there are some sources in the article that are dubious as far as usability goes. One of the sources is a divorce case against Tom, which is used to back up her date of birth and name. Would these be usable for sourcing this? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Absolutely not. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. — Masem (t) 18:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Masem What about in cases where the said court documents were taken note of by a reliable source, obtained by the newspaper, then a copy of it offered within the news article? Graywalls (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No. The newspaper is not saying the document is accurate, but merely saying that the document is the document. And we wouldn't consider a primary document linked to by a single source to be sufficient sourcing to say that it is "widely published by reliable sources" required by WP:DOB. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Number of fatalities at Kfar Aza massacre

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments4 people in discussion

    Copied from my post on the article talkpage: I'm looking at articles discussing fatalities that have come out in the last few months,and they appear to be wildly inconsistent in the number of residents killed. Ynet is saying 79 [74] Kibbutz Kfar Aza, which 79 of its members were murdered on October 7 in the Hamas atrocities, and 18 were abducted to Gaza (August 2024) ToI is saying 62 [75] It’s similarly quiet in nearby Kibbutz Kfar Aza, where 62 people were killed and 19 taken hostage on October 7 from a community of 1,000 residents. (October 2024), ITV is saying 46 for civillians [76] The civilian death toll was later put at 46. The youngest, 14 years old. (October 2024), the Jewish Chronicle is saying 64: [77] 64 of Kfar Aza's 950 residents were killed and 19 were taken hostage. I'm struggling to see why the numbers should be so inconsistent a year or nearly a year on from the massacre. Any insight about which number is correct would be appreciated. (Not looking to call the reliability of any of these sources in question in general, mistakes happen, I know the modern JC is unreliable for Israel-Palestine and I am only including for completeness). Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Is there possibly a difference between civilians and military personnel here that the sources aren't picking up? There may have been Israeli units who suffered casualties in the area on the day of the attacks. The JC and ITV were published on the same day and are probably looking at the same original source, but one of them transposed the digits. It would seem more likely ITV is wrong, but we can't be sure, and it is the more reliable source. The only option is to report the disparity in figures with attribution, except JC which is unreliable for this area.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Perhaps there is also a distinction between people in and from Kfar Aza? In doubt, I would agree with Boynamedsue and just attribute the information, with WP:When sources are wrong if one of the numbers emerges as being more accurate. FortunateSons (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Looking just at sources published in 2024 after enough time had passed since the invasion, I only see 79 in the ynetnews article, whereas all other sources say that there were 64 casualties (in addition to the ToI, ynet in July 2024, mako in August 2024). Alaexis¿question? 21:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Forum post by a company employee

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    I was gathering information to expand the DJI Mini article and I came across the fact that the Mini 3 Pro variant has three different model numbers. This isn't uncommon for DJI drones, as differing model numbers usually indicate minor specification differences or upgrades. I went digging for answers, but the only potential source I could find with an explanation was this post in the official DJI forum by a DJI employee. Would this fall under the "subject-matter expert" (or similar) exception of WP:SPS? I assume it would, but I've never seen an example of a forum post falling under this exception, so I thought I'd ask here before attempting to use it. - ZLEA T\C 09:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Maybe closer to an WP:ABOUTSELF (with associated stricter requirements), considering they are speaking as an employee "in the name of" the company? IMO, it can be used like this or analogously, but I would encourage a high degree of caution. FortunateSons (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Yasuke book

    edit
    Latest comment: 18 hours ago60 comments10 people in discussion

    This book uses original source materials and has been academically peer reviewed yet the editors on the Yasuke page refuse to be open to any possibility that is not inline with the ideology of Thomas Lockley. The writer of this book is a professor and a linguist and is someone who is qualified to read old documents. However the editors of the page feel he is not qualified because he is not a historian per se compared to Lockley (who is not a historian or even a phd is somehow considered more reliable). Shouldnt there at least be a controversy section? There are numerous Japanese professors saying the same thing as Naude.


    https://www.amazon.co.jp/-/en/Alaric-Naude/dp/1763781100/ref=pd_aw_sbs_m_sccl_2/357-2938769-1374961?pd_rd_w=RI340&content-id=amzn1.sym.7b667807-cb84-4171-911f-9a33cabc439d&pf_rd_p=7b667807-cb84-4171-911f-9a33cabc439d&pf_rd_r=T5YSSBPQR35ENZ5PBXN7&pd_rd_wg=0KN19&pd_rd_r=e91bb593-697c-4ec5-ac86-d8e0a1ce13b8&pd_rd_i=1763781100&psc=1 211.36.136.165 (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    HAve not discussed this 15 times already? What has changed since the last discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Although it could be clearer I think the OP is discussing The Real Yasuke: History beyond the samurai myth by Alaric Naude, a self-published work by a professor of linguistics at the University of Suwon in Korea ++(published by United Scholars Academic Press. This isn't clear in the Amazon listing, but is mentioned on the Yasuke talk page and confirmed elsewhere). It's a critique of Lockley's work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Ahh, I see. Well as he is not a historian, and it is an SPS I can see why it might have been objected to. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I was hoping to modify my comment before you replied, but you beat me by a couple of seconds.
    The Amazon listing makes it appear self-published, but elsewhere lists it as published by United Scholars Academic Press (who I've not heard of). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    So there still maybe some valid doubt. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It needs someone with more knowledge of scholarly vanity presses.
    Certainly the fact the author isn't a historian, or published in the field previously, doesn't add confidence. Interpretation of primary historical documents is a minefield best left to those trained in it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Headbomb have you heard of United Scholars Academic Press? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No, but with a name like that, it'd very likely to be run of the mill garbage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Its peer reviewed by academics now which is more that can be said of Lockleys books. 211.36.136.165 (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Just because a press claims to be peer reviewed doesn't mean a scholar operating outside his field of expertise is due inclusion in a contentious article. WP:FRINGE is mute about peer review. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm skeptical of this press. It publishes only this book and one other [78] but its website says that the book is currently "under evaluation" despite the book looking on amazon like it's already available for purchase. This looks like a vanity press. Furthermore there's no information about the peer review committee on the publisher website. Furthermore the press is pay to play [79]. I would say that the editors at Yasuke were quite right to be skeptical of this source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Actually I was possibly wrong about the review committee [80] might have the relevant information. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Naude definitely is giving off WP:FRINGE vibes though. [81] Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There's also this [82] Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    In 2017 he was naming hypotheses after himself. [83] Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    perhaps looking at his historical and linguistics work would be better.
    https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART003076982
    https://www.jiesuwon.com/_files/ugd/bf7a51_c52dee7526044151a4790b0d643431ef.pdf
    https://scholar.google.co.kr/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=k9yxjMIAAAAJ&citation_for_view=k9yxjMIAAAAJ:LkGwnXOMwfcC 211.36.136.165 (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Im not sure that is applicable in this case. Religion and this are two different things 211.36.136.165 (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This author has spent most of his career writing outside his area of specialty about gender and race - generally far-right opinions on the same - he's had no significant academic review of any of his books and is not an historian. This is a WP:FRINGE scholar. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    He does appear to hold to some very fringe ideas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'll note that Lockely's background isn't history, but he is now professionally one. Linguistics can overlap with history, as well. Maybe someone from WikiProject Books could inform this discussion regarding the niche publisher. I looked over the website and it doesn't immediately seem predatory.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I agree. The fees charged are normal for academic field and it lists involved academics. The Japanese version has been really popular in Japan. In Japan this book has been well recieved and we are very picky with history.
    https://www.amazon.co.jp/-/en/gp/aw/d/1763781119/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr= 211.36.136.165 (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Are there any reviews of the work in Japanese academic journals? I couldn't find any in English. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It just came out so I think there arent any reviews in English yet only Japanese. It takes a little time. 211.36.136.165 (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Reviews in Japanese would be fine. The issue is finding ones from academic journals, regardless of language. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I searched Google Scholar for reviews of his work. There was none. And he's not widely cited. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    His work is cited in a book by Columbia University Press. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7312/fook20700-004/html 211.36.136.165 (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry there were none except for the review of his "gays are heretics" book that I linked previously. I didn't say he had zero citation - I said he's not widely cited. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Citations to his works in the field of history would be more useful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Not looking good. This work is linguistic but has an historical component. Zero citations. [84] Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There is no academic field in which it is normal for authors to pay publishers to publish their *books*. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    its not a publication fee its a review fee which is very normal in Asia.If you read there is no publication fee. 211.36.136.165 (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "The USD 300 evaluation fee covers the official review process only. Additional fees may apply for typesetting, editing, and cover design services." -- i.e., fees for the actual work of publishing. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I agree with the above concerns that this guy is fringe.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    could someone read the book then? Because there is nothing fringe in the book 211.36.136.165 (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That is OR. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @211.36.136.165 do you have any personal contact with the author in question? Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This question has been taken to the IP's talk page, any question of COI should continue there. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    And no answer, which to my mind is an answer. Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    This does raise an interesting question which may need a separate question, is the publisher (in effect) a vanity press? Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    That's the unanswered question. They charge a "peer review" fee, but I couldn't say if that a normal practice in Asia or a publication fee under another name. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I found the relevant discussion in Archive 9 of the Yasuke talk page where they believed Naude's book was self-published. Generally there is equivalent skepticism that it is a reliable source in that archived discussion to what is here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    OK I think something strange is going on unitedscholarsacademicpress.com wasn't registered until several weeks after the book was published (28 Oct 2024 v 12 Oct 2024). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The easy way out would probably be to assert that a publisher that's published all of one book probably doesn't have much of a reputation of anything. Also, I don't think this "City University of Paris" is a real university which is a red flag. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Note: Not to be confused with Paris Cité University / Université Paris Cité which is one of the top universities in France. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Published 1 or maybe 2 books since the book they have listed as "under review" is available for purchase on Amazon today, with what is obviously their cover art. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The Amazon listing for the second book doesn't mention United Scholars Academic Press[85] (instead saying it was "Independently" published), this was true of the Amazon listing for The Real Yasuke but that has been updated since this thread started. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    So it begins to look like it was self-published, then a publisher was made up (with appropriate sounding name) to give it some credibility, but still remains an SPS? Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The second book was published as a free ebook through Amazon, it's author is an assistant professor at the University of Suwon (the same university as the other author). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Honestly I think it's a vanity press to let self-publishers present like they published for an academic press in exchange for a $300 reading fee. There's a "review panel" who appear to be made up. There is a consistent style in branding and cover art as in I think it's the same font on the back cover of both books. Both books are by working teachers at the University of Suwon in South Korea so there's probably the key commonality. Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There is more than just the reading fee. As I mention above, the FAQ says "Additional fees may apply for typesetting, editing, and cover design services." And it looks like this is a print-on-demand-and-ebook company, so there is no inherent printing cost to cover. Seems to meet the duck test for a vanity press.
    One thing I'm finding interesting is on running the book's ISBN from the Amazon listing through ISBN hyphenators, it comes back with 978-1-76378-110-8 -- note that 110. It means this publisher appears to have bought a block of 1000 ISBNs (it would be cheaper if you're starting out to buy a block of 100 or even of 10, at least in my experience with US purchases), and marked this with 110, rather than starting at 001.
    Tried searching for one of their review team, "Brant Inner". Got zero hits that referred to a person by that name. This is a professor who has avoided detection. Hmmm.... -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    For our purposes I think we should treat it as self-published until more is known about the publisher. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Also, interesting, the review panel? None of them appear to have ever published anything. Like, for instance, there's a Lu Honghua at the department of geography for East China Normal University but they study geography, not linguistics. There's a geneticist in the United States named Zhao Li Juan but nobody with expertise in ancient & modern Chinese. Prof. Brant Inner doesn't seem to exist at all. Neither does Li Ji Zheng or Yumiko Shibui. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yea, I just did the same check and was going to post about Inner. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    City University of Paris, meanwhile, is a project of Alaric Naude [86] Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Yes, this looks well iffy. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Given that the publisher appears to have only existed as long as the book it has published, and that the books author is not a professional historian, I don't think this should be used as a source for Wikipedia's purposes.
    Until the publisher has more of a reputation to back up the works it publishes then those works should be considered self-published for evaluation purposes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I agree we can put this to bed. Right now we have a book published by a non-expert coming from a press that is "supported by" a private business college incorporated in France by the same person who published the book. This press has published 1-2 books both from teachers at one college in Korea. The review board appears to be artificial. I'd say it's possibly the most convoluted attempt to conceal self-published status I've ever seen. But I'd say, for the purposes of Wikipedia, this book is WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Impressive effort, but still SELFPUB--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • It seems pretty clear to me that this book is a self-publication in disguise and its author is a fringe researcher. I also think that this "paper" he published on an iffy platform offers some valuable context about where Naude stands on mainstream science, or as he calls it, "Ideological Orthodoxy", which he directly compared to the "Third Reich and the USSR" for its activities against dissident researchers. This is indistinguishable from the same sort of over-dramatic rant that you would read from a flat-earther truther or any other modern conspiracy theorist who thinks that liberal academics are trying to subvert Western civilization and suppress their "brilliant" pseudoscientific research. The fact that Naude just became a "published" expert on Yasuke, the latest culture war talking point among anti-woke activists in 2024, is just the cherry on the top. Badbluebus (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    All-time Athletics

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    http://www.alltime-athletics.com/index.html

    This site lists various all-time performances in athletics events and appears to be singlehandedly maintained by Peter Larsson. Several athlete articles have a "track records" section that used this site as a source to determine the fastest performance in X event in X city.

    Certainly an impressive collection of athletics results, but is it reliable for Wiki? The World Athletics all-time list is probably a better choice.

    KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    KnowledgeIsPower9281, per the guideline on self-published sources, this website is unreliable. This is a passion project with no editorial control over entries. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 16:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That's what I thought...thanks for confirming! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    CCN - ccn.com

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    I've been seeing CCN (not to be confused with CNN) being used as a source on some articles, such as EDX Markets ([87]), Modern Terminals ([88], with an entire paragraph devoted to their reporting on the company joining the TradeLens project), and Cryptocurrency and crime ([89]). However, I have concerns about their reliability as a source, specifically with the use of inflammatory language in their articles/headlines, as well as rage-baiting/fear-mongering/misinformation.

    Most of these examples are from years ago and may not reflect their current editorial stances, and are from one contributor, but here they are anyway:

    All of this makes me believe that CCN is an unreliable, garbage news source. What say you? The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 21:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I see their about us page [90]. It seems to not have too much editorial oversight, which is the basis of a reliable source on wikipedia... Ramos1990 (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Are church published sources self-published?

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago12 comments9 people in discussion

    Are sources published by a church considered self-published? Does the level of church body involved change anything? Does the relationship of the person involved change anything? Traumnovelle (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    depends on context and what you are trying to do/claim. Which source are you talking about, and how are you trying to use it? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    More context is needed by Traumnovelle. How you use it matters. There are exceptions. For example, WP:SELFPUB says "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." Ramos1990 (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm asking in general if works produced by a congregation member and published by a church are considered self-published or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Specifically books, I should have clarified. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not sure why you need to know if it's self published. It sounds like you're talking about something that may not be self-published, but unless the church has some sort of reasonable editorial team, does not gain reliability. If you have a specific issue for which this is a question, then please bring specifics. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This is obviously dependent on more specific contextual information. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This probably depends on scale. Someone who is Catholic, writing a book about the Catholic church, which is also published by the Catholic church is likely to have gone through some editorial control simply because of the scale of the Catholic church. While someone writing a pamphlet about their local church, which is then published by that church, isn't as likely not have any oversight. In either case the work wouldn't be independent, whether they would be reliable would depend on the context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No, as a lot depends on what it is, who wrote it, who edited it etc. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Some churches publish material that states that if you reject their teachings you will go to Hell. I hope we will not consider them reliable sources on this topic.  --Lambiam 14:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    As an attributed opinion I see no issue, we just do not state it as a fact, using those sources. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Right at the top of this page it states: Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Without context any answer you get will be of little or no value. For example, the same source may be useful for non-controversial matters (who was the minister, and when) but not for controversial matters (of doctrine or heresy).
    As to the comment on teachings and of going to Hell: MOS:INUNIVERSE would cover this. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Any day not living under Cardassian rule is a good one

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago5 comments5 people in discussion

    Nana Visitor is an actress that played the character of Kira Nerys at the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine TV series. She has written the book "Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman's Trek", about the portrayal of women during all the Star Trek franchise, both in general and down to each lead female character (meaning, it's not just a memoir of her time playing Nerys). Can this book be used as a source, or is there a conflict of interest there? I'm asking about articles about her character, articles about the DS9 TV series and the other female characters and actresses in it, and articles about other TV series from the franchise. Cambalachero (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Yes there is A COI, but as an expression of her views (and in full attribution) I see no issue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    At the very least probably due inclusion as a source under WP:ABOUTSELF but could you explain how you would like to see the source used? Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Agree with Slatersteven. Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Not a COI, unless you're her, but WP:PROPORTION/WP:ABOUTSELF etc ("I was the best woman on Star Trek ever."). While some content might need "according to Nana Visitor...", it seems likely to me that such a book might be useful for some uncontroversial facts too, and those would not need in-text attribution. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    The Batch / deeplearning.ai - an AI/ML newsletter founded and written by Andrew Ng

    edit
    Latest comment: 16 hours ago22 comments5 people in discussion

    Hello! I'm asking about The Batch [91], an AI and ML newsletter written by Andrew Ng as part of his series of online learning courses deeplearning.ai, one of the most prominent authorities in modern AI. The newsletter was founded in 2019, and it was deemed unreliable back in 2021 (according to [92], "A large portion of the sources used are not reliable, notably The Batch, which appears to be the personal blog of Andrew Ng."). Now, in 2024, I believe that The Batch is much more established and reliable than it was three years ago. I see links to the newsletter being used as references across the AI/ML space by prominent leaders in AI, and deeplearning.ai / The Batch is already used in multiple Wikipedia articles (for example, Regularization (mathematics)). I'd like people's thoughts on this, especially from those also in the modern AI/ML space who have heard of the newsletter and/or the author before!

    As an aside, Deeplearning.ai is also very well-known for its deep learning courses [93] with massive followings on YouTube [94], Twitter [95], and LinkedIn [96]. Not that it means anything, of course, but it does show that it's not just some tiny blog written by a tech enthusiast.

    Thanks for your help! GregariousMadness (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Just a quick note how a source is used on Wikipedia, or how many followers it has, has no bearing on it's reliability.
    WP:USEBYOTHERS does though, and it is used in several seemingly reliable works. Do you have any links to it being used as a reference by 'leaders in AI'? It would help establish if it's reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for the quick response! Deeplearning.ai itself is highly reputable in the AI/ML community, with multiple industry partnerships with AWS, NVIDIA, Azure, Google Cloud, etc. [97] [98] [99].
    As for direct links, it's difficult for me to search for them on social media (because a search on Twitter searches any mention of "deep learning" or "AI" or "batch" instead), but it's worth mentioning that The Batch is the official newsletter of deeplearning.ai that's posted on the deeplearning.ai Twitter every week ([100]). They have a less formal, editorial blog that's separate from The Batch that is much less notable or reliable ([101]); the newsletter, on the other hand, is written by Andrew Ng himself. GregariousMadness (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Social media and company partnership aren't what I was looking for. What's needed is other reliable sources using The Batch as a reference, for instance in a book for journal article. Andrew Ng might be considered reliable per WP:ExpertSPS, if he has been independently published by other reliable sources as an expert in the field. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Understood, I'll continue to search. And to answer your question, Andrew Ng is – and has been – one of the most influential figures in artificial intelligence, being listed in the top 100 influential people in AI in 2023 ([102]). In the meantime, as per WP:ExpertSPS, would you say that a direct quote from the newsletter is valid? (It was reverted because we were uncertain whether The Batch was reliable before I asked this question in this noticeboard.) This is what I had written:
    In his 2020 assessment of 15.ai in artificial intelligence newsletter The Batch, computer scientist Andrew Ng wrote:[1]

    "Voice cloning could be enormously productive. In Hollywood, it could revolutionize the use of virtual actors. In cartoons and audiobooks, it could enable voice actors to participate in many more productions. In online education, kids might pay more attention to lessons delivered by the voices of favorite personalities. And how many YouTube how-to video producers would love to have a synthetic Morgan Freeman narrate their scripts?[1]

    However, he also wrote:

    "...but synthesizing a human actor's voice without consent is arguably unethical and possibly illegal. And this technology will be catnip for deepfakers, who could scrape recordings from social networks to impersonate private individuals."[1]

    GregariousMadness (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    ExpertSPS would require that he had been previously published in AI, but all I can find by him is the chapter in Architects of Intelligence by Martin Ford. His other works on AI appear to be self-published.
    He would be reliable for his own words, but verification doesn't guarantee inclusion. You would need to discuss on the talk page whether Andrew Ng opinion on a matter was due inclusion, it's a NPOV matter not one of reliability (see WP:DUE and WP:BALASP). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I see, thank you for the insight. Does his inclusion in the top 100 influential people in AI not count as being published in AI? [103] I didn't include the link initially because I didn't see your question, so I wanted to make sure before I made a post on the talk page if WP:ExpertSPS already applies. GregariousMadness (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I've done a search on Google News and found a number of journal articles that use The Batch as a reference – I've posted them in the thread below! GregariousMadness (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Do you have any links to it being used as a reference by 'leaders in AI'? It would help establish if it's reliable.
    I've found this post on LinkedIn supporting the reliability of The Batch:
    Written by Martin Vechev: [104]

    Andrew Ng's The Batch, one of the most read newsletters in AI, highlights our work on COMPL-AI (https://compl-ai.org/), the first automated framework for evaluating LLMs w.r.t EU AI Act compliance. COMPL-AI was developed in collaboration between Bulgaria's INSAIT - Institute for Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence and Technology, our lab at ETH Zürich and LatticeFlow AI, a deep-tech company with presence in Zurich, Sofia, U.S. and elsewhere.

    I'm looking for more direct references of the newsletter by top AI leaders, but it looks like the vast majority of discussions around it are from its target audience (those who are looking to learn more about AI). Nevertheless, I don't think this should take away from its notability and reliability as the official newsletter of deeplearning.ai. GregariousMadness (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    We need to be able to demonstrate that it is used by others - and isn't just influential on Twitter - to establish notability. Simonm223 (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I agree, but does the above post by Dr. Martin Vechev not qualify? He is a major top leader in the AI space (founder of DeepCode and LatticeFlow) and linked it in his post above. GregariousMadness (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Again it's all just social media stuff. And frankly there's very few circumstances under which social media is usable by Wikipedia for anything at all. Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That's fair. I think it would be very difficult to find a print book or journal post referencing an online newsletter, but maybe someone else can aid me in my search.
    As an aside, what are your thoughts on including the above statement by Andrew Ng as a direct quote? Would something like what I posted above be valid as per WP:ExpertSPS? GregariousMadness (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    After a bit of searching, found many seemingly legitimate sources that use The Batch as a source (I did a search on Google News for the term "deeplearning.ai newsletter "the batch"").
    [105]

    The rise of synthetic data comes as AI pioneer Andrew Ng is calling for a broad shift to a more data-centric approach to machine learning. He’s rallying support for a benchmark or competition on data quality which many claim represents 80 percent of the work in AI.

    “Most benchmarks provide a fixed set of data and invite researchers to iterate on the code … perhaps it’s time to hold the code fixed and invite researchers to improve the data,” he wrote in his newsletter, The Batch.

    [106]

    And in the June 7 edition of The Batch, Ng admitted that the AI community is entering an era in which it will be called upon to be more transparent in our collection and use of data. “We shouldn’t take resources like LAION for granted, because we may not always have permission to use them,” he wrote.

    [107]

    In an issue of his DeepLearning.ai newsletter, The Batch, titled “It’s Time to Update Copyright for Generative AI, a lack of access to massive popular datasets such as Common Crawl, The Pile, and LAION would put the brakes on progress or at least radically alter the economics of current research.

    [108]

    And today, in an issue of his newsletter The Batch, Ng wrote that “My greatest fear for the future of AI is if overhyped risks (such as human extinction) lets tech lobbyists get enacted stifling regulations that suppress open-source and crush innovation.”

    [109] (Lists The Batch in its references)
    [110]

    For evaluating general-purpose foundation models such as large language models (LLMs) — which are trained to respond to a large variety of prompts — we have standardized tests like MMLU (multiple-choice questions that cover 57 disciplines like math, philosophy, and medicine) and HumanEval (testing code generation). We also have the LMSYS Chatbot Arena, which pits two LLMs’ responses against each other and asks humans to judge which response is superior, and large-scale benchmarking like HELM. These evaluation tools took considerable effort to build, and they are invaluable for giving LLM users a sense of different models’ relative performance. Nonetheless, they have limitations. For example, leakage of benchmarks datasets’ questions and answers into training data is a constant worry, and human preferences for certain answers does not mean those answers are more accurate.

    source: https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/issue-251/

    I also found some posts about The Batch from non-social media affiliated enthusiasts:
    [111][112] [113] [114] GregariousMadness (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Substack and blogs don't add anything, the Venture Beat articles are stronger - more like that would be good. Just for reference web posts and journal articles are not the same. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Got it! On the lookout for more. As for the first link, it was a post on NVIDIA's official technical blog written by Gerard Andrews [115], so I believe that should be reliable. That, plus the three Venture Beat articles in my previous post, plus the following articles that use The Batch as a reference:
    [116]

    Google Brain cofounder and Stanford professor Andrew Ng says he tried but couldn't coax ChatGPT into coming up with ways to exterminate humanity."To test the safety of leading models, I recently tried to get GPT-4 to kill us all, and I'm happy to report that I failed!" Ng wrote in his newsletter last week.

    [117]

    I liked what Andrew Ng had to say in his The Batch newsletter this week about Meta’s Galactica, in the aftermath of controversy around the model’s potential to generate false or misleading scientific articles:

    [118]

    “That we can replace such fundamental building blocks of LLMs is a sign that the field is still new and much innovation lies ahead,” Ng wrote in a blog called The Batch.

    Do you think these are enough to establish notability and reliability of The Batch? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Another one I found:
    [119] (quoted from The Batch: [120])

    Andrew Ng wrote, “Sometimes GPT-3 writes like a passable essayist, [but] it seems a lot like some public figures who pontificate confidently on topics they know little about.”

    [121]

    Generative AI output became more like itself over time, with less variation. They reported their results in “The Curse of Recursion,” a paper that’s well worth reading. (Andrew Ng’s newsletter [Link to The Batch] has an excellent summary of this result.)

    GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Nevermind I should just have check Google Scholar[122], I'm just being a bit slow. He would be reliable as a self published source. You may still want to attribute states from The Batch, for example "Andrew Ng in his newsletter The Batch said....". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No problem! Yes, I'll attribute that Andrew Ng wrote it in his newsletter. Thanks for the help. Does an admin need to mark this question as resolved? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 22:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This isn't an admin board (and I'm not an admin), it's just a board to ask advice. No worries though, it will get automatically archived in a few days. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Treat as a SPS, which means that it doesn't count towards notability (which is what matters in the context you linked [123]) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    References

    1. ^ a b c
      Ng, Andrew (2020-04-01). "Voice Cloning for the Masses". The Batch. Archived from the original on 2020-08-07. Retrieved 2020-04-05.

    National Rifle Association

    edit
    Latest comment: 15 hours ago9 comments6 people in discussion

    Is the NRA (National Rifle Association) considered a reliable source for firearm and other related topics? They issue a magazine that I get and was wondering if they could be used. If you have any questions or need more information just let me know. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    @Sheriff U3 What's the magazine? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I get the American Rifleman, but they have a lot more too. You can see all of the here. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 17:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think that would be fine for facts about guns. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It might be reliable for their attributed opinion and basic facts, but I doubt it's good for stating anything contentious as fact (given how heated gun issues are in the US). By basic facts I mean the description or dimensions of a firearm, date of events, how many of a certain weapon was sold in a particular year, etc. Opinions may not be due for inclusion, for instance Firearm is a global article and the NRA is a strictly US organisation (see WP:DUE and WP:BALASP). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah I would agree with this. I think for most facts about guns they'd probably be fine - but associated controversies or BLPs I would be very very cautious. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I would say that they are generally reliable for firearm and other related topics, though I would cite them with attribution so at least the reader knows the source of the stated information is coming from the NRA. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Agree with everyone's comments so far. Context matters. It is a US organization, but can be useful for firearm data and information. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Bit of a wide spread here (NRA approved joke)... For basic information about firearms, their history, their use, their accessories, their manufacturers, etc they have historically been and remain reliable. What they aren't reliable for is politics (now less than ever, but never great). There are of course some topics (like firearms law) which falls into both categories, this I would be very cautious with... Attribution is I believe necessary. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Source at Draft:Adrien Nunez

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments3 people in discussion

    I am working on Draft:Adrien Nunez. Is the Artistrack.com a WP:RS. I want to use this article, but it feels like it may be a press release.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    It's an advertorial, it's states that it's sponsored at the top of the article. Most of it won't be usable as it's overly self serving in it's language, and it wouldn't be independent in notability terms. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thx.
      Resolved
    -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    However, NY Post and SB Nation fan blogs are certainly not RS for BLPs...those should be removed from the draft. JoelleJay (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Rockpasta.com

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Is the website rockpasta.com [124] a reliable source for music articles? It is being used on the article for Comfortably Numb, and a search of Wikipedia ([125]) shows that it is currently being used on eight articles, the aforementioned one included. My problem with the website is that a lot of signs point to it being unreliable -- the source being used on the page that I noted ([126]) does not have a last name provided for the author, and their "about" page ([127]) does not claim to perform fact-checking or even provide a list of staff. If you ask me, this appears to be a content farm -- based on the articles presented on their homepage ([128]), it seems like another one of those Alternative Nation/Far Out Magazine-type rock clickbait sites, and as such should not be cited on Wikipedia. However, I would like to know what others think, given that, based on searching this noticeboard, this website has not previously been discussed here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I think your assessment is pretty accurate. There's no way to properly assess reliability, as there's just not enough information given by the site to make that assessment.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    DBpia.co.kr

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Is the website DBpia.co.kr It is an website which is made and controled by Nurimedia. It is a website that publishes academic papers. Some papers are available for free and others are available for a fee. All the papers are credible papers that have passed the screening process. You can see papers against the background of various languages such as English, Chinese, and Korean. Most of academic papers are written by University Professor. Jo HyeonSeong (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    This is going to depend on the papers. Looking through a few examples many appear to have been published in academic journals, and would likely be considered reliable. If the haven't been published in a journal reliability could come down to who the author is, see WP:EXPERTSPS.
    Given how wide ranging the papers are I don't think a simple answer is possible. A real answer would depend on the full context, what exact content is to be verified to which specific paper. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Yonhapnews (연합뉴스)

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    Yonhap News is a South Korean news agency. It is the largest news agency in South Korea and has been designated as a "national news agency" by legal requirements. Other domestic media companies also have reprint contracts, so it is a reliable media company. Do you agree this statement? 

    Kang Taeho (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No source is always reliable, the best rating is just generally reliable. As major news organisation it would be covered by the general guidelines (see WP:NEWSORG), as well as the caution about using opinion pieces (per WP:NEWSOPED). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    As an aside the legal statutes of a country have no part in assessing whether a source is reliable or not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Insight(인사이트)

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Insight is a curated news site in South Korea. It is the No. 1 Facebook subscription media in Korea, but it is an internet media site that is called one of the two major mountains of pseudo-media and yellow journalism in Korea along with Wikitree, a similar media outlet.

    I know this media is unreliable, but I wonder how much trustworthiness it has. Constructive opinions are welcome. Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I can't find much information about them, but there headlines make me think of the advice about tabloids. How many social media followers it has doesn't matter.
    Do you have any links to reliable sources calling it 'pseudo-media' or 'yellow journalism'? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    China People's Daily (PRC newspaper)

    edit
    Latest comment: 15 hours ago5 comments5 people in discussion

    China People's Daily (PRC newspaper)

    I think that if you want to know what is happening within China and the Chinese government's decisions and other publishing issues, you can check here. This is a news media founded by the Communist Party of China itself. Peter011008 (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I would have thought it's a similar situation to the prior discussions on Xinhua News Agency and China Daily. Reliable for the positions and opinions of the Chinese government or the Chinese Communist Party, less so for details outside of those areas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Agreed that it makes sense to treat it as we do WP:XINHUA or WP:CHINADAILY. - Amigao (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Unreliable for anything beyond aboutself (which would only apply to the party in this context). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    better sources exist. if none do, could be used with attribution. most reliable about self or official government stance Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    WikiShia.net

    edit
    Latest comment: 15 hours ago4 comments4 people in discussion

    Is WikiShia a reliable source? It's linked to in almost 100 articles.

    It's a wiki, which would typically qualify it as user-generated content. However, contributions are "supervised" and restricted to people pre-approved by the Ahl al-Bayt World Assembly, so "user" in this case seems unclear. I'd still lean towards classifying it as UGC and therefore unreliable.

    In addition, its neutrality seems doubtful as it's self-described as "preaching the school of the Ahl al-Bayt (a)" and Shia Islam, although it seems to aim for neutrality within Shia teachings.

    If WikiShia is decided to be an unreliable source, should all references to it be removed?

    User-generated content is also discouraged in external links; should links to WikiShia pages be removed from external link sections as well? Trebuchette (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    IMO, no it's not. Straight out removal might not be the best solution in every case anyway, it would depend on content/context. Ideally the refs should be looked at with a scalpel approach, "this content needs removal", "here we can use another source instead" etc. But that takes time and effort. [better source needed] tagging is an option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It should be replaced with better sources on a academic by case basis, removing content only if it's unverifiable by other sources. In many cases it includes references in it's articles, these could be checked and used to replace the reference to WikiShia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Generally unreliable as UGC, note that UGC doesn't require open access. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Circularity and interviews with wikipedians regarding allegations of bias in wikipedia

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 hour ago11 comments7 people in discussion

    The draft which is currently being worked on for Antisemitism and Wikipedia has a section which makes widespread use of pieces written by Aaron Bandler in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, based partially on interviews (usually anonymous) with wikipedians.

    Wikipedia Editors Include “Palestine” in “Genocide of Indigenous Peoples” Article

    Seven Tactics Wikipedia Editors Used to Spread Anti-Israel Bias Since Oct. 7

    Wikipedia Editors Title Article “Gaza Genocide”

    Wikipedia’s Fundamental Sourcing Problem Forty-three Jewish Orgs Call on Wikimedia to Reconsider Editors’ Decision on ADL

    Several questions arise from this:

    • 1. These appear to be strongly biased sources which occasionally mix comment and fact. However, I feel they are probably ok to use with care. I'm not sure if other users would share that assessment though.
    • 2. How much weight should we be giving to articles about wikipedia based on interviews with wikipedians? Are they any better than vox pops for example?
    • 3. We have a (imo at least) strongly biased source which has connections with a subset of wikipedians, and frequently publishes articles which support their political viewpoint. I believe the wikipedians interviewed participated in the talkpage and noticeboard discussions they describe. If we are using sources based on anonymous interviews with ourselves, do we not risk circularity? Articles end up being based on the positions held by wikipedians on talkpages.
    • 4. Can editors add, or participate in discussions pertaining to, sources they were interviewed for?

    As this is at the intersection of WP:RS, WP:DUE and WP:COI, and the issues all affect each other, I have notified at the COI and NPOV boards but I hope we can keep this discussion here. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    All of these are from Jewish Journal [129]. It looks like a publication among the Jewish community with some editorial oversight, but not sure how much. The pieces seems to be written by a journalist. I think these are ok to use, like you said, with some care. Ramos1990 (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    i think circularity is if material from wikipedia is being used for wikipedia. in general, the real experience of editors editing wikipedia is not material from wikipedia and should not be a circularity issue.
    i think questions of bias should be solved with attribution if necessary and questions of dueness. no clue about editors participation in discussion material they helped generate outside of wikipedia, that would be a slight COI that should probs be disclosed. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Not sure here. If I criticise a source on a talkpage because I don't like it, and my opinions do not hold sway in the discussion, then I contact a friendly journalist who publishes my criticism, I can add my criticisms to the article. This is wikipedians introducing their opinions to wikipedia through targeted action. If it's not circular, it is at least oval.--Boynamedsue (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    you could maybe argue no independence… but maybe nobody is independent enough to talk about wikipedia since everyone uses it and everyone can contribute to it Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think there is a difference between "could edit an article" and "does edit a specific article, and then plays a role in creating sources that go on it or that criticise it"--Boynamedsue (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It probably depends on the objective. If the objective were to leverage the media to create disinformation as part of an ongoing information war that can be injected back into Wikipedia so that it can be disseminated widely and incorporated into LLM training sets, then using these kinds of sources is probably quite a good idea. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Heh. Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    THis does not seem to be an RS issue, so much as an undue one. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    As stated in the OP, it is an issue which has aspects of various areas, and so it is probably better to discuss in one place. Even if that means some discussion will fall outside of a strictly defined remit of one particular board.--Boynamedsue (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Jewish Journal is likely a reliable source, particularly for the quotes of other people (unless there is reliably sourced accusations that they publish falsified quotes). The interviews with Wikipedians wouldn't be WP:CIRCULAR as interviews with people who editor Wikipedia isn't Wikipedia content. As to COI or DUE take it to the article's talk page, per the header of this noticeboard this isn't a general foruma and having those discussions here means they won't be in the talk page archives of the article itself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1260388387"