Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460

Additional notes:

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

Start a new discussion

---

Check Your Fact

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)

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)

It's part of Daily Caller and as factual. Why would it get an exemption? - David Gerard (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

should be deprecated if its part of daily caller Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, [1][2][3][4]. 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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

So be it, CommunityNotesContributor. I've started one below. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

RfC: Check Your Fact

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

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

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

Survey: Check Your Fact

• 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)

• 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 [5] 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• 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)

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)
• Option 1 per Red-tailed hawk. Nemov (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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." [6]. Likewise, academic studies frequently utilize CYF in their research (see [7], [8], [9], 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)
• Option 1. There appears to be a lack of tangible evidence that CYF has actually published any false or misleading statements, or otherwise failed to correct errors etc. While I'm sceptical that any publication under the control of TDC can be considered generally reliable here, I'm not seeing any evidence as to why CYF should be considered unreliable. Instead, there appears to be strong arguments as to why it is in fact generally reliable. I otherwise think the status quo should apply here; if IFCN believes it is reliable, then it is generally reliable, and either there needs to be very strong arguments as to why this is not the case, or otherwise the previous consensus needs to be overturned. CNC (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Reluctant option 1 While I'm personally uncomfortable with their Daily Caller ownership, most everything posted above seems to indicate that they're editorially independent and considered reliable by most other sources. Probably worth keeping a closer eye on them, though. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. While there may very well be few cases in which it's necessary or appropriate to actually cite CYF for a statement of fact, there has been no compelling evidence provided that CYF is anything but a reliable source. I really dislike any of us random Wikipedians engaging in beard-stroking, second-guessing of the criteria used by a reliable source like the IFCN, just as random Wikipedians should not be saying "how come that New York Times article didn't interview X, Y, and Z, who I think really would set the record straight?!", or "I don't like that systematic review in The Lancet because I think they should have used a different methodology!". If the IFCN rubric is 'bad', then WP:IFCN is bogus, and I guess every fact-checking website under its purview should be jettisoned just because someone on the internet has an issue with it. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion: Check Your Fact

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  "It would have been included in the Daily Caller RFC" It wasn't. CNC (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  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)

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)

  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)

  (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)

  Of course there is no use, it is deprecated. I think that it should be removed from the perennial sources listing. If it comes up, then it can be discussed. I think the fact that it has its own newsroom and is a specific type of journalism, means that it can be treated differently. From a quick look, it is mostly debunking social media posts. So I don't think any of those might be relevant for Wikipedia. The bias is probably more in what they choose to debunk. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  There are well over a thousand uses of The Sun, which is similarly deprecated. Removing it from RSP seems fine though, I doubt people will suddenly start using it... Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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. [10][11]. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Indie Vision Music

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.

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)

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)

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

• Ah- I found the talk page discussion where this source along with a lot of others were added. multiple editors were involved and approved that listing--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

and I posted to Projects Journalism, and Magazines. Graywalls (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

I also notified WikiProject Albums.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Important clarification: The band member mentioned by me and Graywalls above no longer writes for the site (not naming them because they might be a Wikipedia editor and I don't want to out them).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

• My feeling is that the recent discussion at COIN (here [12]), 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)

• 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)

• I'm still waiting to hear back from the website/Brandon Jones about the policy, but, I was able to determine that they do issue corrections and edits: [13], [14], [15], [16]. So that's a good sign of editorial oversight and ensuring accuracy.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

Okay, that's what I was thinking. Thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

You brought up one point, and I addressed that point. Graywalls (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

I'm disagreeing in your interpretation and application. Graywalls (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Of course I do, but I'm not the one you need to convince - he is. Chubbles (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thank you for that explanation--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is a hypothetical example of where USEBYOTHERS justification would be inappropriate. The vlog referenced is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eFIaubn24E That video was a tip that to the story in a WP:RS source Bon Appetit https://www.bonappetit.com/story/best-vodka-taste-test. If we go along with 3family6's idea of application, we'd consider Meagan After Dark YouTube an acceptable source, because some of their content was used by Bob Appetit. I'd say citing IVM directly would be along the line of citing that MAD vlog directly. Graywalls (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I'll give some examples. Thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

#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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There is, coincidentally, actually one such discussion open right now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

RfC: Indie Vision Music

Is Indie Vision Music - Contact/staff - Contact/staff from 2006-2020 a generally reliable source for music-related journalism?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Indie Vision Music has been used as a reliable source for Christian music articles since this 2013 talk discussion, 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. Graywalls is unsure of the reliability of the site. It is used by other RS, 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. 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 2007) and thus have credentials outside IVM. There are multiple writers for the site besides those two individuals. It seems to function similar to other sites deemed RS, such as MetalSucks, Chronicles of Chaos, Metal Injection, Stylus Magazine, and other online-only publications.

The concern from other some editors is that the site operates similar to Forbes contributors and is thus unreliable. Though there are multiple staff writers, especially over the past two decades, Brandon lists himself for contact and doesn't list the writers. There also is a case where one former writer contributed some articles about bands that he was personally involved in or was a member of. Also in the above discussions, there's a concern that the website is very niche and so interested in promoting niches zines that secondary coverage independent from the artists is not a concern.

Additional concern I discovered after posting the above: IVM also had a writer, Eric Pettersson, who started with the publication when he was in high school (he continued regularly for the publication until 2011). I also will note that the current site does not have any of the news articles published prior to October 2016, and reviews and interviews prior to August 2006 were brought over to the new site format and no longer bear the original date stamp.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing 5 8 options, which I've listed below:

• Option 1: Yes, generally reliable for 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, as well as interviews. Any coverage of the site regarding artists from its own label, or from authors who are members of or otherwise closely affiliated with the artist they are discussing, are only reliable as primary sources as they otherwise have conflict of interest.
• Option 1b: Generally reliable as articulated above, except for any coverage from author Mason Beard.
• Option 1c: Generally reliable as articulated above, but with discretion to exclude authors whose professionalism is questionable (such as Eric Pettersson, at least before 2010; and maybe Mason Beard).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2: Generally unreliable for any secondary coverage, reliable for interviews (as interview subjects can be sources about themselves).
• Option 3: Reliable for critical opinion, discussion, and categorizing musical style, but not reliable for any statements of fact about living persons.
• Option 4: Only coverage by Brandon Jones from 2017 onward, or from Lloyd Harp, is reliable.
• Option 5: Only reliable after 2006, and with discretion for individual writers.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 5b: Same as option 5, but also generally unreliable for secondary coverage after 2020.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Invalid RfC but, while I'm here, Unreliable for everything. Indie Vision Music is an extremely niche self-published fanzine, with USEBYOTHERS limited to other extremely niche fanzines. The complaint that only 3 or 4 sources in a walled garden cover these subjects is evidence that these sources are in the extreme minority and UNDUE. Meanwhile, the "similar" RS sites mentioned above are orders of magnitude larger and are themselves widely cited by actually reputable sources outside their niche subject. Besides that, the given options for this RfC only appear to include the opinions of editors who were repeatedly canvassed to the above discussion, and largely ignore editors who weren't canvassed. Woodroar (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Almost everything you claim here is untrue. "Unreliable for everything" is an option. If your objection is that I excluded interviews, interviews are considered primary sources and thus the site can't be unreliable for that usage, per guidelines on primary sources. I also specifically mentioned yours and other editors concerns above about it being a niche source that that caters to fans and thus can't be regarded as being factually accurate or good for notability. And lastly, Lords of Metal is a Netherlands based general metal music website completely unrelated to the Christian scene as far as I've been able to tell over the years; Manteca Bulletin is a newspaper of record dating back to 1908, so definitely not a nice Christian music scene source; and Cross Rhythms is a long-standing UK-based publication that also was print-based, deals with the whole gamut of Christian music including artists like Natasha Bedingfield and classical musicians, and the site runners and editors are separate from the overarching company that publishes the site (if that was also a concern). If you think IVM is unreliable, that's fine, but you shouldn't need to then make false statements to justify that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

A newspaper of record is many orders of magnitude larger than anything we're discussing here. The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, those are newspapers of record. These are much smaller, regional publications that are as good as fanzines in that they cover everything that is happening locally, typically in a positive, promotional fashion. That Manteca Bulletin article could easily be a template for any "Local Boy Band Makes Good" story. Interviews at these types of outlets are just as bad. They're like a talk show, asking softball questions, letting the subject promote whatever they want or get out their talking points. We're an encyclopedia. We shouldn't be relying on these kinds of sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The article lead described it as a newspaper of record, which is why I referred to it as such. However, the description section describes it as a community newspaper, which seems more accurate. However, they definitely are an RS, and even if it's a local paper, your "walled garden" claim of only niche sources referencing IVM is still demonstrably false.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

And this is starting to approach WP:BLUDGEON Graywalls (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

My response to Woodroar?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The way in which approach each time there's dissenting opinion, generally speaking in this discussion. Graywalls (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want to go there, the same could be said regarding yourself. We're both the overwhelming majority of the comment here. Regarding Woodroar's statement above, I could have argued far more, but I opted to let it rest, for the reasons elaborated in that guideline. I actually wasn't aware of that linked guideline, but already was trying to approach this discussion in a similar spirit. To be clear, I've been presuming the RfC as a fresh discussion, as the previous one had stalled (if we want the tally, excluding you and I and people I pinged and/or who came from notices on WikiProjects, it was 1 in favor of how the source is generally used (North8000), and 1 against any usage (Woodroar). If we include people who responded to my notices, it was 3 in favor of general reliability, 1 of which has been at least partly rescinded per discussion in this RfC, and 1 against (Axad12) (so a total of 2 for, 1 against, 1 effectively stricken.). After North8000's and your comments and my replies to those, the discussion stalled for 4 days (and discussions are archived here after 5 days). I was hoping that this RfC would be a fresh start, but it doesn't seem to have been that but just the same three re-hashing the same arguments (apart from the discussion with Toa Nidikhi05 regarding the student writer). I personally am not responding to anything more unless it's comments from someone else or is new information.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Echoing Woodroar here. Graywalls (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Graywalls, you've brought up WP:FORBESCON, which I think is one of the most relevant hypotheticals you've posed. Presuming it is such a situation where the editorial oversight is minimal, Options 2, 3, and 4 are all consistent with that, dependent on what level of expertise we're presuming of the contributors. While Woodroar might not have heard of HM and Doug Van Pelt, the 110,000 print and over 2 million online subscribers to Christianity Today have had multiple opportunities over the years to have heard, and that's just one publication of many which have talked about or referenced HM. There's also academic coverage of that publication. I can provide examples if requested, but a quick Google search should confirm what I've stated here. Given that, why would you still lean to complete exclusion (Option 2) rather than Options 3 or 4?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• I did find this example from 2007 of a former writer for IVM (2005-2011) had started writing for the site when he was in high school. So the professionalism of the writers definitely seems to vary.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Toa Nidhiki05 - you've said that you consider this publication reliable. You also on my talk expressed concern about another source (The Phantom Tollbooth) seeming to be amateur. Given this above instance of a high schooler writing for IVM, does that change your opinion at all? 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not necessarily opposed to the use of high school or college aged students as long as the reporting is of high quality (student papers can actually be good resources - I think I used one in the article for 10) - but it's very unusual for a credible website to use them. This definitely impacts how I view this site, or at least the quality of average contributors. Toa Nidhiki05 15:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Both this and going back and seeing archived versions of the site as it was in the mid-2000s, I am questioning that at least at that time if it is a reliable source. I think it's important that this is a year after Murphy joined as an editor. So I'm wondering if, if it's not entirely unreliable, there should be a cutoff of it being unreliable before certain date. or at least that contributor not reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking through his resume, he doesn't seem to have done any other music journalism, and his other journalism all student journalism. So nothing afterwards to suggest he became a more professional writer. He does seem to perhaps be a subject expert as a tour guide for Reading, Pennsylvania, but that's a completely different subject area.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05, do you have a recommendation that you would suggest regarding the reliability of this source? 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added more options, and updated the statement to reflect what I subsequently found regarding the student staff writer.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

For reference, the ways that this source is used typically used is for news about artists and album reviews, both of which also are presumed to contribute to an artist's notability. I'm also using it for an article I'm building in my sandbox (about Christian death metal) to discuss the history and stylistic evolutions of some bands as that relates to Christian death metal. Specifically, these articles: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not about a certain questionable author, but rather they seem to casually allow run of the mill people to write for them making them more or less similar to Forbes Contributor articles. Still not having their editorial policy is a red flag. So, my take on this is that it's a freaking blog with no bearing on raising notability score of others. Graywalls (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Concern about them letting run of the mill people write for them is concern about a questionable author, or authors, in this case. I think you need to reread FORBESCON. The issue with Forbes contributors is not the writers, it's the editorial policies. Forbes contributors *can* potentially be reliable as expert self-published sources, provided they are not being used to make BLP statements. So by that standard, Lloyd Harp would be fine to use, and arguably Brandon Jones since 2017. There's a reason I provide that as an option: because I was taking your Forbes contributors comparison seriously. But there's two concerns: The quality of the writers, which I agree varies, and the editorial policies. We don't know that there isn't a lack of editorial policy. But we haven't been able to confirm that there is. I've never received an email back. Either way it's a bit of speculation. You are convinced that they don't have one, but we can't say that for sure, especially since prior to 2020 they had a head editor.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Another potential comparable situation to how IVM functions is WP:NEWSBLOG. This was the consensus for About.com music contributors - reliability is contingent on their professional experience, and a table was created for ease of tabulating which writers are professional and which are not. IVM isn't necessarily comparable to this situation, but it might be, and I think that's another relevant consensus.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

And you haven't been able to produce published editorial policy for IVM. Graywalls (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I literally just said this above that I haven't heard back. Which means it could exist, or might not. that they had an editor suggest that there was some type of process. What's at issue here is whether it's robust or not. Could you explain more of what you mean by "published editorial policy"?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Example: https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html Graywalls (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I thought. I wish there was such a public statement. And that would probably have made both this and the previous discussion unnecessary.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done)

So, my take on this is that it's still a glorified blog/webzine, or a subpar magazine. "Used for over a decade" may not have substantial meaning. RSP red sites like IMDb, Discogs, Find a Grave, FamilySearch have been used for a long time too and even though they shouldn't be used and as you've probably noticed, some highly unreliable junk sources persisted in metal articles too. Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Al-Manar

What is the reliability of Al-Manar?

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

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

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

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

Survey (Al-Manar)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• Option 3 per The Kip. ~ HAL333 05:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

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,

• [24] the Hitler of our time, Benjamin Netanyahu
• [25] the Zionist invaders are incapable of facing men of God directly (in their own voice, not marked as opinion or anything)
• [26] 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)

[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)

• 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)

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)

@XDanielx, The Times of Israel frequently calls Hamas members as "terrorists"[27], 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  I believe there is more to it than systematic bias. M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  None of those are on RSP, which is what VR said. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  Media in the Arab and Muslim world has a systemic bias. It really shouldn’t be surprising that media in countries with poor freedom of press often governed by autocrats is disproportionately represented among sources considered unreliable. A deluge of bad sources from a region of the world is not reason to relax our standards when assessing sources from the region. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• Option 3 per Bobfromblockley Andre🚐 00:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 I don't see how this is better than Al Mayadeen or RT. Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2, where the "additional considerations" include not presenting its assertions related to the conflict as factual in wikivoice. Zero^talk 04:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Option 3, per above. --NAADAAN (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 per BobFromBrockley. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 for non-controversial issues such as Lebanese football or basic, uncontested details about the news, as well as attributed statements from organizations that align with its bias such as Hezbollah or the IRGC. Option 2 for more controversial subjects, statements by organizations that tilt against its bias, or anything disputed by other sources. In my reading of the discussion section, editors have given evidence that Al-Manar is biased and at times prone to questionable editorial decisions, but I have not seen evidence of systemic unreliability, much less evidence of a detrimental impact of such unreliability on-wiki. Special considerations bordering on Option 3 should be given to any extraordinary claims, and republished content from other sources should be cited at the original source rather than at Al-Manar unless the original source is paywalled or otherwise inaccessible. Unbandito (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4, deprecate per M.bitton comments. Highly unreliable, beyond unreliable though as it is a deliberate and intentional arm of propaganda. That is the classic case of where deprecation is appropriate. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2: Per Chess. GrabUp - Talk 19:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 to 4 This is clearly a worse-than-average source with a history of misattributed claims, occluding untrustworthy information sources and generally bad journalistic practice. Is it pervasive enough to deprecate? I don't know. Maybe it's fine for Lebanese football news as mentioned elsewhere. But for any contentious topic we absolutely should not be using this source. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 no evidence of unreliability seems to have been demonstrated. I don't care what it is comparable to, I'd like to see evidence of unreliability. You don't need an RfC to tell that you shouldn't be citing this for Middle East conflicts. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  Traumnovelle, can I clarify if I understand: you think additional conditions should apply (option 2), and the specific additional conditions in this case is not to cite it for topics to do with Middle East conflicts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  It is really just common sense. If what this source states about a Middle East conflict is truthful and due it almost certainly will be reported elsewhere. I apply the same standard to sources such as the Time of Israel too. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Al-Manar)

• 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:
  • 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)

    Are you suggesting we treat a claim from a US based source as a fact? M.Bitton (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

    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)

    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)

  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)

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

• "If You Can't Make It, Fake It: The Age of Invented News". Royal United Services Institute. 4 September 2012. Retrieved 15 November 2024.: Al-Alam and Al-Manar, two Arabic-language television channels owned by Iran and its regional allies, frequently lead with stories which have never happened. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Misrepresenting the sources, like you keep doing, is what makes a source unreliable. M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

... and attributes it to them. I'm starting to question your motives. M.Bitton (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Republishing from bad sources is not the same as citing, and indeed does indicate poor editorial policies/standpoints. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Another common tactic Al-Manar uses to obfuscate its sourcing is to claim to source from unspecified "agencies" when, in fact, it is copying article text verbatim from Russian state media such as WP:TASS. For example:

• Al-Manar article - original TASS article
• Al-Manar article - original TASS article

Amigao (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

• "Dangerous precedent seen in decision to put Al-Manar on list of terror organisations". RSF. 20 December 2004. Retrieved 15 November 2024. "Some of the anti-Semitic statements broadcast on Al-Manar are inexcusable but putting this TV station in the same category as terrorist groups worries us and does not strike us as the best solution" BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't make it unreliable. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Once again, more than 20 years ago. Also see weaponization of antisemitism.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you accusing RWB of weaponising antisemitism? Why would they want to? BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

What are we supposed to “see” here? You have reason to believe that this is a manipulative and dishonest claim of antisemitism? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• EUvsDisinfo has cited Al-Manar at least 14 times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) for spreading disinformation. Some are re-publications of articles from deprecated sources such as WP:SPUTNIK and WP:RT.COM, and include claims such as conspiracy theories about the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine leading to Alzheimer's disease. - Amigao (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  A pro NATO source criticising Russia and anyone who doesn't consider NATO's word as the absolute truth. What a surprise. M.Bitton (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  M.Bitton, is there a criticism of Al Manar, real or hypothetical, that you would accept or at least not consider to be bullshit? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  I looked at some (not all) of the links. Every single one is simply reporting what Russian or Syrian officials said, and attributing it directly to them. It is the job of journalists to quote officials' statement no matter how unsavory they may be (and many of these statements are quoted in Western RS themselves).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Vice regent: while this discussion is talking place, Bobfrombrockley is busy adding whatever garbage they can find to the "Al-Manar" article. M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  It is very offensive to call another editors’ edits “garbage”. I would be grateful if other people could look at these edits too. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's what you've been collecting and adding while the discussion is taking place. That's not something I would expect from an experienced editor, least of all when another discussion involving sources misrepresentation is also taking place on the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton I must reiterate: The Kip ^(contribs) 00:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Here is an Al-Manar article (sourced from WP:SPUTNIK and WP:DAILYMAIL, another deprecated source) that speaks about the COVID-19 lab leak theory as if it is a fact without any balance or qualification. Source: EUvsDisinfo - Amigao (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  "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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  You mean the CRIF? M.Bitton (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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.”[28] 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• "LEBANON: Did Tunisia's tyrant buy off Hezbollah TV?". Los Angeles Times. 24 May 2011. Retrieved 15 November 2024. Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television was allegedly paid $100,000 to polish up the image of deposed Tunisian dictator Zine el Abidine ben Ali... The newspaper said Al-Manar, which used to receive $150,000 a year to support the Ben Ali regime, asked for an extra $50,000 annually if ACTE wished to raise the profile of the ruler, who now resides in Jeddah with his wife. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  allegedly no need to read further than this. M.Bitton (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Cochrane, Paul (7 March 2007). "Bombs and broadcasts: Al Manar's battle to stay on air". Arab Media & Society. Retrieved 15 November 2024.: France banned the channel following complaints by the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France to the French Higher Audio Visual Council (CSA) that scenes in a 30 part Syrian-made series, Al-Shatat (The Diaspora), aired during Ramadan 2003, were anti-Semitic. The show, which claimed to depict the history of the Zionist movement, stoked widespread condemnation by portraying the killing of a Christian child by Jews to use the victim's blood to make matzoh bread. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  I already told you: unbelievable as it sounds, in France, you can bash the Arabs and the Muslims all day long and make up any story about them (under the protection of the so-called "freedom of speech"), but the moment you say anything that is related to Israel, then your freedom of speech ceases to exist. M.Bitton (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Are you saying the show, Al-Shatat, did not portray Jews as child-killers, and that the French Jews are making this up? Because otherwise French racism and free speech ideas are not relevant to determining this Lebanese source's reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Do you expect me to explain to you what "freedom of expression" is? They are free to show whatever they want. Arabs and Muslims are often portrayed as terrorists (when they're not portrayed as something worse) in the western media, and their history often falsified, yet, you don't see them crying and whinging about it. M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton your tone throughout this discussion is verging heavily on WP:NOTFORUM/WP:BATTLEGROUND, I heavily encourage you to slow down a bit. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  @The Kip: Your targetted comment is verging on aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Aside: our article on this series, Ash-Shatat, has been nominated for deletion, in case editors are interested in that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• There's always heat in discussions of contentious topics, but even given that this sections is starting to go off topic. Discussions should be about the source in relation to policies and guidelines, how the source is described by other reliable sources, or matters relating to the handling of the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Times of Israel

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

---

What is the reliability of the Times of Israel?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Generally unreliable with deprecation

Previous discussions: [29] [30] [31] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Times of Israel)

• Option 1. The Times of Israel is a generally reliable newspaper of record and is a benchmark for the area as a whole. I'm starting this RfC because other editors have indicated both on and offwiki they see the Times of Israel as WP:MREL or less. I want to determine if that is a widely held position. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  Per Nableezy, the blogs are unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Not always. We will accept a blog by a bona fide expert on a subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7 and Nableezy: "Unreliable" here would be treating the blogs like WP:COUNTERPUNCH, which is also WP:GUNREL yet can be cited if an article is by an expert per WP:EXPERTSPS. Is that fair? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, of course. An established expert writing anywhere including ToI blogs is still a usable source. But generally unreliable meaning the publication itself does not grant any reliability to it is what I meant. nableezy - 06:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with that too. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. I broadly agree with Pluto2012's views expressed in the last discussion on this. Reliable for Israeli politics, not reliable for events that are part of the Israel Palestine conflict, broadly reliable for events in other countries (where those events do not relate to the Israel Palestine conflict). ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  Any chance you could link to or quote Pluto2012's comments? I can't see that name in the last discussion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, my mistake, discussions were listed newest to oldest. They write:

  It depends what for.
  Times of Israel is an Israeli site of information with a clear editorial line. It is certainly reliable for the meteo or when reporting some scandals in Israel ; and it is certainly not for events about the colonisation, the Arab-Israeli relations, ... and for events about what happens in other countries...

  I would probably be broader than that and say that they are generally reliable for Israeli politics. I can't say I am an expert on Israeli newspapers, but that would be my viewpoint from what I have read. ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 For two reasons. First per El komodos drago and second because we should not ever be treating a newspaper as generally reliable in all circumstances. Simonm223 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  You can assume I have read that and think it requires significant revision as it is out of synch with the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS. Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Simonm223: So, your argument isn't based on policy? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  No. I may be stricter with newspapers than general but my argument remains in line with El D within the context that I think newspapers are, generally over-used. Simonm223 (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm confused about how WP:NOTNEWS, which deals with our coverage of events on Wikipedia, intersects with WP:NEWSORG, which is about how we judge the reliability of news sources. Could you go into a little more detail about the conflict here? Safrolic (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  The wide allowance of news sources as reliable sources leads to a preponderance of "notable" news events. These news events are frequently rife with WP:RECENTISM and there's rarely any consideration in the long-term lasting impact of these events. WP:NOTNEWS tells us that Wikipedia is not appropriate for breaking stories and yet, through the wide-spread over-use of news sources, we routinely have articles that are breaking news stories wearing a lampshade of encyclopedic relevance. I think this is off-mission for Wikipedia.

  It's been something of a perennial complaint of mine and I'm largely resigned to being the minority opinion here because I know that widespread use of news sources is very convenient - especially when people are interested in topics with minimal academic significance. However it does mean that, when people ask whether news organizations are "generally reliable," I'm not going to say an unconditional yes.

  In addition, the option 2 - reliable with additional considerations - is about as high on the reliability scale as we should go for any source since reliability should always be treated as context-specific. If you look at my conversations at this noticeboard on academic sources you'll see I generally strongly prefer working with journals and books from university presses but, even there, I don't automatically assume reliability in all circumstances. Nor should we. Ever. So to summarise my position:

  1. General reliability is a misnomer, all reliability is conditional.
  2. I believe Wikipedia over-uses news sources and that this has had a deleterious effect of creating articles about topics of little long-term relevance.
  3. I think that academic presses have higher quality control standards than news organizations and should generally be preferred in all circumstances.
  4. Wikipedia should use fewer news organizations as sources and WP:NEWSORG is too permissive IMO.
  5. This specific news source does not seem reliable for matters related to the conflict between Israel and Palestine although it seems as reliable as other news sources on other topics. Simonm223 (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  The text of GREL indicates "generally reliable" just means factually reliable in most cases, it's not like it's something that prevents scrutiny if a source says something that's patently ridiculous. We have WP:ROUTINE as well, and that's not all that closely related to reliability. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  GREL is not policy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  OK, but it is the definition of "generally reliable" used, so... Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I am not convinced we need an RfC at this moment. I feel constant RfCs on sources relating to Israel/Palestine are a waste of people's time. It's a very biased news source, which means it needs to be used with great care, especially on Palestine. We could say that about almost any paper in the Middle East.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  On one hand, you're probably right. On the other hand, it's too late now. RfC's on a contentious topic are a little like avalanches, once they get started, you get a pile of opinions and then some poor administrator has to close it. More than once, I've seen someone a random question about why RSP says something, and it gets to the point where everyone is chipping in with their opinion on the source, and we have to have an RfC anyway... Best wishes and have a nice day, ~ El D. (talk to me) 21:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 While bias is fine, the Times of Israel has occasionally displayed bias on the subject of the Israel-Palestinian conflict that has reached extremes that may impact its factual reliability. A non-holistic list of research on this point includes:

- A 2021 peer-reviewed study in the International Journal of Communication found the TOI "framed protesters as violent and responsible for casualties and attempts to dehumanize them".[32]

- A 2024 peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Arts and Human Science found that "The Times of Israel ... frame narratives to consolidate unilateral Zionist control and normalize militarized policies." [33]

Further, the subdomain blogs.timesofisrael.com appears to be citizen journalism with minimal or no gatekeeping and should be avoided. Chetsford (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

These are both analyses of how media frame issues, i.e. they're accounts of bias not of unreliability.

The first also analyses al-Jazeera and find it frames narratives in a biased way too. Al-Jazeera is repeatedly affirmed this noticeboard to be reliable so your argument for downgrading ToI should only be persuasive to those who think al-Jazeera should be downgraded. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

"These are both analyses of how media frame issues, i.e. they're accounts of bias not of unreliability." Like I said: "While bias is fine, the Times of Israel has occasionally displayed bias on the subject of the Israel-Palestinian conflict that has reached extremes that may impact its factual reliability."
"The first also analyses al-Jazeera..." This is a thread about the Times of Israel. Chetsford (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you give some substance from these articles that shows it is so biased that its reliability is impacted? I'm not seeing that here. What I take from these articles is that ToI is typical of news media in framing the world according to its ideological preconceptions, i.e. there is nothing there that suggests we should treat it differently than any news source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Source 2 discusses "hidden ideological agendas ... advanced under the guise of objective reporting" and "thinly disguised propaganda". We routinely deprecate propaganda outlets. Source 1 aligns with essentially identical conclusions. And frankly, as I mentioned these are just a snapshot from a smorgasbord of studies that examine a level of such extreme bias by TOI that it warps the reliability of the Who What Why narrative. I'll leave it at that as I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Source 2 is striking in its vagueness. Emotionally charged dehumanization served exclusively nationalist security agendas through visceral identification rather than structural critique of governance denying Palestinian self-determination. Inhibiting balanced perspective on political grievances guaranteed indefinite escalation cycles while normalizing oppressive policies as the sole means of control. Basically it says that ToI uses words like “terrorist” instead of “resistance” to talk about Hamas, and humanises Israeli victims but not Palestinian victims. If we used ToI’s language we would not achieve NPOV, but source 2 gives no instance where using ToI reporting would lead us into inaccuracy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 The ToI is generally fine as far as Israeli news sources go. It obviously has a particular perspective on the issues it covers, including the Israel-Palestine conflict, but no evidence has been presented that this is any worse than that of the UK Telegraph or Al Jazeera for instance (both reliable per RSP). For any coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict we should be seeking to use a pleurality of sources from a diversity of perspectives. If the blogs lack editorial control they should be treated like WP:FORBESCON as generally unreliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 for news reporting, the blogs are generally unreliable as ToI disclaims any editorial review or control over those contents. nableezy - 21:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 when comparing coverage of events domestic or abroad to other listed RS, there is parity on facts of the content. There is certainly no more apparent bias or other RS issue with ToI than with Al Jazeera, for example. From coverage of Isr-Pal conflict, it seem they report from perceived/assumed authorities and what their reporters can gather in the field, not much different than US sources reporting with statements from the Pentagon and field reporters. TheRazgriz (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Generally reliable and they should especially be used for covering the Israeli Palestinian conflict. They were one of the first news outlets reporting on the Killing of David Ben Avraham. In regards to that story, they were one of the most balanced and neutral in their reporting compared to Haaretz, JPost, MEE, etc. Their editors also go back and correct/update their articles/headlines if there was a mistake. In this article, the editor’s note says, “This article has been corrected and updated. An earlier version cited, in the headline and the text, a foreign press reporter who visited Kfar Aza saying she was told by an IDF commander that the bodies of 40 babies, some of them beheaded, had been found at the kibbutz. This claim has never been confirmed.” Wafflefrites (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. As I said in the previous discussion, This may not be obvious to most editors, but the central use-case for TOI is as aggregation of Hebrew-language media. Many stories are only available in English via these outlets, and they are usually reliable translators. NOTE: This is to the exclusion of specialized legal, religious, or military subjects. TOI does not have the expertise to translate these articles correctly (no one with legal, military analysis, or Orthodox-religious higher education on staff) and the result is often seriously distorted. Although w/r/t religious and technical detail a similar concern attaches to every daily newspaper, I would never prefer TOI for any claim that a monolingual outlet had equal ability to report. For example, I spoke with Jacob Magid last year for a story regarding UN diplomacy. He had badly misunderstood his source, unlike mainstream outlets. There is no reason to use TOI for such a claim. Anyway, there's a category of such publications for every foreign language, and it does no one any good to restrict our citations to equal-quality foreign-language sources that most editors can't even evaluate. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 This is one of the better Israeli sources, the expected bias but a clear step up from the JP. Selfstudier (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 I will echo what others have already said, Times of Israel is a generally reliable source with the standard consideration of potential bias, though no more then any other source in the topic area. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Selfstudier. Questions about bias/dueness always especially in topic area, but reliable enough. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 agree with Selfstudier. Rainsage (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per all above. Fairly standard, comparatively balanced outlet - if TOI somehow isn't considered GREL, then we need to re-evaluate a lot of other GREL sources. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 for Israel-Palestine and Option 1 for general. GrabUp - Talk 05:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 largely per the arguments above, particularly Hemiauchenia. I reject the notion that newspapers cannnot be GREL, and this specific one has a sufficient history of accurate and respected reporting without major red flags. FortunateSons (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable, without caveat. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 yeah agree with GrabUp, Option 2 for Israel-Palestine and Option 1 for general. Baqi:) (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• This feels a little out of nowhere, just saying. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Tis a bit, not sure this really needed an RFC, still we're here now. Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  There's a fair amount of controversy with many supporting WP:MREL. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Is there anywhere in articlespace where it being in a yellow coloured box or a green coloured one somewhere in projectspace would matter one way or the other? Because I assume if the source says anything weird, it would end up here anyway, no matter what colour the box is, when it actually happens, and then we would have the benefit of, oh, I don't know, some context maybe?

  Like sure, if we're having this RFC we're having this RFC I guess, but I really don't get what these more abstract discussions (that seem to be a thing now) are actually going to resolve. Sure, I don't actually do much related to CT/A-I, I've more or less avoided the topic area thus far, but is contested addition or removal of this source something that actually happens? Are people using this source and then getting it removed by other people that think it's MREL? Are people removing the source running into cases where they're getting reinstated?

  More to the point, could there be something more specific than "this entire source, in general", or even "this entire source, as used in the A-I topic area" that could be considered a nexus for contested additions or removals? Are people worried about DUE? I'm not sure there's really any consensus on whether we'd apply colour coding for that (what counts as "additional considerations" is pretty vague) or, again, whether the pretty colours would even matter either way. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  I broadly agree with your statements, and I would like to see evidence of onwiki misuse before degrading reliability of a source. That being said, I wanted to hear what the other side had to say, which is why I started the RfC.

  The impact of these discussions is that only generally reliable sources count for WP:DUE, at articles for deletion, for assessing WP:COMMONNAMEs when at requested moves, and in many other places onwiki. Marking the Times of Israel WP:MREL means it's less reliable (therefore having less weight) for the purposes of those discussions, and reducing a source's reliability can be a strategic maneuver beyond whether it can be easily cited in articles. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 08:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Times of Israel is generally reliable for factual reporting, particularly on Israeli domestic affairs, with standard journalistic practices and clear editorial policies. however, for Israeli-Palestinian topics (Option 2), additional sources are recommended due to its Israeli perspective, reliance on Israeli official sources, and imbalanced coverage depth between Israeli and Palestinian viewpoints. For non-I/P coverage, it can be used similarly to other mainstream reliable sources.Cononsense (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Do you mean to say "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" topics? As written, Option 2 for "Israel-Palestine" is a proposal to make it WP:MREL for anything relating to Israel and Palestine, including domestic affairs. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Nobody’s disputing that it’s biased, which is what the argument for #2 you’ve laid out seems to rest on. The question is whether that bias affects reliability, which thus far little hard evidence has been given in support of. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 for Israel-Palestine topics, Option 1 otherwise. It's a newspaper of record, but caution must be taken when a national newspaper discusses a war that nation is in. MultPod (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Not EC, but responded to FortunateSons (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  @FortunateSons What does EC stand for? Why is my entry struck through? MultPod (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  @MultPod, FortunateSons left a message on your talk page informing you about contentious topics. As the message explains, you have to have extended-confirmed (EC) status to discuss anything related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Schazjmd (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I saw that message. It does seem that extended-confirmation is more properly abbreviated as XC, though. MultPod (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 for I-P topics; Option 1 otherwise - For reasons laid out by Jannatulbaqi, Cononsense, & MultPod. NickCT (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment It's not typically standard for the reputable free press of a country to be presumed unreliable on any reporting about a war involving that country. The NYT isn't presumed unreliable when the US goes to Afghanistan, for instance. "We should never treat a source as generally reliable under all circumstances" is also not an argument typically made about other sources. Safrolic (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is not typically standard. I do have questions about to what extent Israel's press can be considered free, given RSF's ranking of the press freedom situation in Israel as "problematic", [34] but this is not my primary concern. My particular issue is the combination of the Times of Israel with the Israel-Palestine conflict, given their history (see the papers in Chetsford's comment) of misrepresenting that situation. By contrast, I would be happy with other Israeli papers (e.g. Haaretz) which have a better history of fact checking and are more neutral on the conflict. ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Although TOI adheres to good journalistic ethics and attributes the statements by the Israeli military that it reports on, I think that editors would be wise to limit the extent to which we regard the publication of IDF statements by the TOI as an indication of the notability or veracity of those statements. I think this is especially relevant as it applies to the designation of individuals as terrorists or the use of the presence of terrorists as a justification for a particular military action. The TOI is all too willing to repeat IDF claims that terrorists are hiding in every hospital, school and aid vehicle in Gaza while making little effort to independently verify those claims. As MultPod said, caution must be taken when a national newspaper discusses a war that nation is in. This is especially true because, contrary to Safrolic's comment, there is press censorship in Israel (a fact that the TOI itself acknowledged in its coverage of the October '24 Iranian strikes) and, especially in the current war, a record of retaliation by the government against independent and critical elements of the press. Unbandito (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Unbandito: Would you be in favour of treating all Israeli sources as WP:MREL due to the pervasive press censorship in that country? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, it's not that simple. I think the specific considerations I brought up in my comment are pretty clear. Unbandito (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Unbandito: What parts of your criticisms are generally applicable to Israeli media, and what parts are specific to the Times of Israel? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  In making my criticism I had this specific article in mind, which I read recently because it was used on the Israel-Hamas war page. Wisely in my opinion, the editor who added it used it to include the claim that a handful of named individuals had been killed in a targeted strike, while leaving out IDF claims published later in the article that it had detained "more than 1000 members of Hamas" and killed "over 1,300 terror operatives." These claims are more grandiose and it would not be due to repeat them as TOI does when eyewitness testimonies and forensic evidence, as covered in other sources, contradict the framing that the large numbers of people detained in north Gaza were all or largely Hamas members, as well as the "terror operative" status of such a high number of the people killed in Gaza over the two or so months of the Jabalia operation. It's clear that the TOI is doing little to verify IDF claims, and is rather repeating them uncritically, so we should not seek to add those republished claims based solely on the TOI's publication of them, given the considerations I outlined above. Rather, we should use them sparingly and when sources are in agreement about them.

  I'm sure some of what I said about TOI is generalizable to Israeli media. After all, I agree with @MultPod's comment about national media covering its own wars in general, but as always context is important. Unbandito (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  That specific article does not really say anything in its own voice; it attributes all its claims to the IDF (although it may well believe them). So I'd say that's a reliable source for the claims of the IDF ("the IDF said x"), but we shouldn't use it to make a claim in our voice without attribution, and we shouldn't use its biased language but rephrase in our neutral language ("Hamas member" not "terrorist"). I think that's how we ought to operate anyway, especially for contentious topics, e.g. it's how we'd treat the Times of London if it reported on a war the UK was involved in, and I don't think we really need to add it to RSP to say this.

  Unabandito's point about notability, or rather noteworthiness, is correct: we don't need to report something just because ToI has said it. But I don't think that's a ToI-specific thing: it's just about applying our normal WP:DUE policies sensible. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think 'press censorship' can refer to very different phenomena. In some countries, press censorship means managing everything the press is allowed to say about the government or other issues. It can mean telling the press they aren't allowed to show images of women singing or with their hair uncovered. In other countries, 'press censorship' means that while the country is at war, their media can't report details that impact immediate national security, like the specific location a missile landed in minutes earlier, or an ongoing military operation outside the country's borders. Some governments restrict all communication between their citizens and the outside world to ensure that foreign reporters can only hear their preferred viewpoints, while in other countries, censored media organizations are freely able to leak censored information to foreign outlets and then quote the international media for their domestic audience. Which kind of press censorship are you ascribing to Israel? Safrolic (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  This article gives a good overview of some of the topics likely to be impacted by Israeli wartime censorship laws: Personal details of hostages, operational details, intentions and capability of the enemy, etc. We should use caution in citing Israeli sources exclusively for facts on these matters; I think my above comment provides a good example of a TOI article with IDF claims that aren't worth repeating just because they were published there.

  It is also worth taking into consideration the raids, shutdowns and bombings of Al Jazeera and other outlets in this and past conflicts, arrests of journalists reporting on missile strikes, Israel's ability to control access to the Gaza strip for its national media, and the sanctions leveled against Haaretz as part of the broader context in which the Israeli press covers the war. Unbandito (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think it would be legitimate/sensible, as a general rule, to say that on the specific eight topics Intercept lists we need to make a particular effort to triangulate Israeli sources that have been vetted by the IDF with non-Israeli sources that haven't. We also want to avoid the opposite problem, which would be not using Israeli sources because they're vetted and then allowing systematic bias against Israel. Triangulation is the key principle, but that's a key principle for any contentious topic here so I'm not sure it needs a specific yellow flag for ToI to get people to edit responsibly. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Selfstudier and others. Nobody has presented evidence of unreliability. Most advocates of option 2 have not indicated what additional considerations should apply, except to triangulate with other sources on anything contentious, which should go without saying for any source in the I/P topic area, so I see no case made for anything other than general reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think we should note the blogs are not reliable, and they seem to be pretty widely used. nableezy - 20:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Historically the blogs have even hosted outright satire before, though not exclusively. Their blog sphere was one of the places Joshua Ryne Goldberg trolled at, too (as WP's page notes). Although in his case it was deleted, the fact he was able to post under someone else's name does suggest a lack of initial controls. VintageVernacular (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Agree, or rather they are as reliable as HuffPost contributors or Forbes contributors: Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. Looking at uses on WP of the ToI blogs, most are either used as ABOUTSELF sources on the contributors or are written by obvious SMEs and used with attribution. Where that's not the case, they should be flagged as SPS if uncontentious and removed if contentious or about BLP third parties. That is presumably the default position, even though we've not stated it explicitly for this platform, per our SPS policy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 I don't see any evidence that suggests they aren't a generally reliable NEWSORG. Andre🚐 06:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2: Although the newspaper's reporting is mostly attributed and often critical, it seems to be very generous with accusations of antisemitism to cite one example of unreliability:

1- ToI describes the highly esteemed UN rapporteur Francesca Albanese as having a history of "antisemitic statements." [35]

2- ToI has a category named "antisemitism on campus" relating to coverage on pro-Palestinian demonstrations in US campuses. [36] [37]

3- ToI has coverage about US pro-Palestinian actress Susan Sarandon listed under antisemitism category. [38] [39]

4-ToI reported in its article on how WP's RS noticeboard downgraded the ADL earlier this year that it was not the first time WP has debated the reliability of a "Jewish source," as if sources have religions or ethnicities, or as if WP doesn't consider Haaretz -a "Jewish source"- to be reliable.

ToI might be indeed overall more reliable than unreliable, but these examples show risk of including potentially libelous and biased material to WP, thus necessitating additional considerations such as triangulating with high quality and independent RS and using attribution for contentious claims on antisemitism and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

1- All of the instances they list about Albanese are accurately reported; whether or not her comments are antisemitic is a judgement call and we'd need to report it neutrally not just use the language of any one source. E.g. Al-Jazeera might say none of those comments are antisemitic; ToI might say all of them are "antisemitic, anti-Israel and pro-Hamas"; we would just report accurately what she's said and perhaps mention that she was accused of antisemitism if the accusation came from someone sufficiently noteworthy.

2- In the first example here, the ToI do not describe the protest as antisemitic; the only use of the word outside the tag is "In a statement, Temple Students for Justice in Palestine, which organized the demonstration, denied accusations of “antisemitism, intimidation, and harassment.”" If we don't use headlines as reliable sources, we certainly don't use taxonomic tags. (For comparison, this article on OpenDemocracy about false accusations of antisemitism is also tagged with "antisemitism".)

3- Same, Sarandon isn't accused of antisemitism in the article. She herself is reported talking about antisemitism, hence the sensibleness of the tag. ("Movie star Susan Sarandon claims she was blacklisted in Hollywood after she said, at a pro-Palestinian rally in November of last year, that US Jews fearing for their safety, given a spike in antisemitism, “are getting a taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country.”")

4- I don't think it's controversial to call the Jewish Chronicle and the Jewish Virtual Library (the two mentioned as such) as "Jewish sources", and even if it was controversial it is NOT cause for downgrading reliability). The main issue with that article is that ToI doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, which is sadly the case with most reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

In general, and this was the case in the Al-Jazeera RFC as well, we should not be cherry picking stories we disagree with or even dispute the accuracy of. I said during the Counterpunch RFC something like this is like Reddit trying to solve the Boston Marathon bombings, cherry picking whatever cherries trigger somebody’s outrage meter is not how we should be determining a sources reliability. That’s true for all parts of the POV spectrum. If other reliable sources have said that these stories are false and they indicate an issue with ToI then bring those sources. But personal opinions of wikipedia editors shouldnt be used to determine a sources reliability. nableezy - 16:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

"even if it was controversial it is cause for downgrading reliability" Sorry, is this a typo? Safrolic (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct! I meant it isn’t. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is a ToI article describing Albanese as a person, not her comments, to be antisemitic, in its own voice: US Congress members call on UN leadership to remove antisemitic official: The Times of Israel exposed UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese’s history of antisemitism in an investigation last year.." This is libelous and should not be inserted into BLPs without attribution, so of course additional considerations are needed. This is only one example and I am sure there are many others. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: So, you believe the Times of Israel is inaccurately describing certain people and their belief systems as antisemitic. Can you explain what definition of antisemitism you're criticizing? Incorrectly defining antisemitism is one of the main reasons the WP:ADL is unreliable.

Your argument would be much stronger if you provided an explanation as to why the Times of Israel is inaccurate, especially if it is similar to the ADL in that it wrongly calls pro-Palestinian activists antisemitic. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

According to this website, “ Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

Based on these sentences, I can see how some others might perceive Albanese’s statements to be antisemetic. The source also gives other examples such as “

1. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
2. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
3. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
4. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.“

Wafflefrites (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Disagreeing with a source does not make it unreliable. Such a standard would rule out most sources. nableezy - 00:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't, that's why I voted option 2.

Apparently, ToI considers even accusing Israel of potential war crimes to be antisemitic. ToI's reporting contains the definition: "side from inveighing against a 'Jewish lobby,' she has also sympathized with terror organizations, dismissed Israeli security concerns, compared Israelis to Nazis and accused the Jewish state of potential war crimes." This definition seems to me to be even more radical than the ADL's. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That’s a better example but it’s still a subjective judgement call not a reliability issue. Many other RSS would say the same thing (Albanese’s 2014 comment was antisemitic; she rightly apologised for it.) while others wouldn’t. Many RSs call Trump, Netanyahu and Orban racist; others don’t. Disagreeing with a judgement is not grounds for calling a source less reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Is Haaretz reliable, in your perspective? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Effectively all of these examples boil down to bias on ToI's part, which again, nobody is disputing. I fail to see how that affects the longstanding RSN precedent that bias does not equal unreliability. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not precedent anymore, because the argument is that certain opinions are factually untrue. The claim Makeandtoss is making is that you're lying about facts if you claim that Palestinian protestors are antisemitic.

Our own Wikipedia article Anti-Zionism#Allegations of antisemitism spends most of its section refuting that anti-Zionism can be antisemitic. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Please don't cast vague accusations.

The statement "ToI has a category named "antisemitism on campus" relating to coverage on pro-Palestinian demonstrations in US campuses." is true & in no way says that no pro-Palestinian protesters are antisemitic. The issue is that it implies all of these campus protests are inherently antisemitic, even when the articles tagged as such don't mention antisemitism i.e. 1 234 (I'm not claiming that there isn't reprehensible behavior described in these articles, but if they don't mention the subject of antisemitism, it's an issue for them to categorize them as such anyway)

Your issue with the anti-Zionism article however is unrelated to the discussion at hand. If you believe there is something wrong with its content, please take the matter there instead. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Butterscotch Beluga: I'm treating Makeandtoss' claim as true and steelmanning the argument. If we assume the Times of Israel said that pro-Palestinian protests were generally antisemitic, how exactly does that make them unreliable?

My understanding is that these protests are anti-Zionist, and the equivocation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is demonstrably false as per our Wikipedia article.

I will likely break this discussion out into a new thread and ask what definition of anti-Semitism we should require our sources to have. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say that I agreed that this issue makes them unreliable, (as you can see above I !voted for option 1 myself) only that your comment seemed to misinterpret Makeandtoss's !vote.

I will say however that that's not how steelmanning works, as you're seemingly addressing a bolder version of their argument, not a stronger one. Absolutist positions make for inherently weaker arguments as they lack nuance. Also, the comment I replied to didn't seem to be arguing against said hypothetical anyway.

What I was commenting on was how "The claim Makeandtoss is making is that you're lying about facts if you claim that Palestinian protestors are antisemitic." is an inaccurate description of their argument & reads as an accusation that Makeandtoss holds an absolutist position on the matter & considers differing positions to be lying. I'm not saying you intended for that to be how it read, but I also don't see what the point that comment was trying to make either. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Butterscotch Beluga: I'm breaking this point out into a new discussion at #What_definition_of_antisemitism_should_we_require_sources_to_have? Hopefully Makeandtoss will elaborate on their position there. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip, @Chess would you then agree that TOI is not a reliable source for determining who is and who isn't antisemitic? Antisemitism is a real, objective phenomenon and we ought to be able to sometimes state "X was antisemitic" in wikivoice. But we should agree TOI isn't a RS qualified to determine who is antisemitic.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: This is a better question for the thread lower on the page. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Two points on this:

• As stated below, I don’t necessarily think we ought to be determining an “objective” definition of antisemitism ourselves - there’s a reason that there’s three major competing definitions plus a billion personal views on what is and isn't antisemitic. With orgs like the ADL, they went past bias and into outright falsehoods - they didn’t get GUNREL’d just because they were biased in their assertions of antisemitism related to the conflict.
• On that, while I’d only rarely use a TOI claim of antisemitism to support an assertion in Wikivoice (as I’d do with most sources around either side of the conflict), I still completely fail to see why they are unacceptable to even be attributed as we typically do with contentious claims by reputable news orgs.

The Kip ^(contribs) 22:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Better than I said it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 I examined the evidence of unreliability in previous discussions and users above and I am not convinced that differing characterizations amount to falsehoods. Still I agree that the publication has an bias obvious from its name and should be attributed for contentious statements involving antisemitism and the PIA conflict. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. It's a widely used source in this topic area and its reliability is confirmed by the examples in this thread which would are supposed to be the worst things they published. "Framing protesters as violent" could indicate bias but then again, should we likewise demote sources that display the opposite bias by framing protests as peaceful? Alaexis_¿question? 17:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 for Israeli military claims, as well as on WP:BLPCRIME. Otherwise, Option 1, as TOI is one of the better sources in this area.
  • TOI has a bad habit of considering Arabs/Muslims accused of crimes to be guilty until proven innocent, by contrast most Western newspapers are careful to use words like "alleged" for people who are not yet convicted:
    • For example, it called a shooter of Arab ethnicity a "murderer" (even though there were doubts about his mental sanity)[40], by contrast CBC News called him a "gunman"[41]
    • Here they refer to a Lebanese baby, dressed in military-colored baby clothes, as the "youngest terrorist"[42].
    • "16-year-old Palestinian terrorist" is how TOI describes a teenager captured in Gaza, who had not been convicted of any crime[43].
  • it uncritically treats Israeli military claims as fact. For example, just this week:
    • TOI: "Qadih marks the first known incident of a terrorist working for WCK"[44] By contrast, Reuters[45] reports the same but attributes to all allegations to Israel, and notes the Israeli army "did not offer any evidence".
  • it treats babies in ovens claims as facts[46][47], whereas we know that was an anti-Hamas hoax[48].

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

it treats babies in ovens claims as facts is cited to two ToI blogs which appear to be agreed on as unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah Im unaware of ToI ever claiming that was true (unlike JPost and i24). The blogs are unmoderated. They recently had one titled Lebensraum Needed for Israel’s Exploding Population before it was noticed and taken down. The blogs arent written or vetted by ToI, so while that means ToI cant grant them any reliability it also means their non-reliability cant detract from ToI's reliability. nableezy - 22:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Journal of controversial ideas redux

Previously I kind of left this particular bone of mine unpicked as the time it takes to review whether a philosophy journal constitutes a WP:FRINGE source is rather a lot, especially as some people like to incorrectly suggest that fringe philosophies aren't a thing. However I've been picking away at it in the background.

1. Presently the journal is being used in a lot of contentious topics including WP:GENSEX, WP:AP2 and, alarmingly considering its content Diversity, equity, and inclusion (the journal has published papers in favor of the fringe concept of Transracialism) and Race and sexuality with an article that argues in favor of a biological theory to ascertain race-specific dating practices, you know Scientific Racism.
2. The founders have said that they would be open to publishing pro-eugenic material [49]
3. There is evidence that the founders specifically started the journal in response to negative reactions over a pro-eugenicist paper [50]
4. The founders, themselves, have expressed pro-eugenicist points of view [51]
5. Associate Professor of Philosophy at Deakin University, Patrick Stokes, said of the journal a pseudonymous journal devoted entirely to “controversial” ideas starts to look less like a way to protect researchers from cancel culture, and more like a safe-house for ideas that couldn’t withstand moral scrutiny the first time around.
6. Henry Reichman, professor emeritus of history at California State University at East Bay and chair of the American Association of University Professors’ Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure, expressed concerns about the ethics and effectiveness of a pseudonymous journal to protect academics but also pointed out the academic dangers of a pseudonymous journal, saying there is “potential for abuse” of such a journal, in that “academic research is generally assessed by peers in open discussion and debate.” And what if any author publishes one view under one name and a slightly different one under a real one? Or self-plagiarizes? Still, Reichman said, “it seems an interesting if potentially dangerous endeavor.”
7. In practice the journal has allowed an academic veneer to be applied to the fringe beliefs of scientific racism, transracialism and transphobia.

It's my contention that this pseudonymous journal acts precisely in the manner that Stokes was worried it would and that it has precisely the dangers that Reichman identified regarding its deviation from standard academic publishing practice. In light of its irregular publishing practices, its use to support fringe social science beliefs and its deep relationship specifically to eugenics I think we should treat this journal as a WP:FRINGE publisher and should not consider any articles published in it as reliable sources for anything other than the personal opinion of the author under the usual intersection of WP:FRINGE and WP:ABOUTSELF. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Considering the scope seems to specifically be things that does not have widespread acceptance I struggle to think of any situations where it would be appropriate to cite it alone, without other sources to contextualise. JCW for 10.35000 to 40000 seems to indicate it's onlyy cited a few times though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

That's missing articles likely due to failures in citation format. [52] shows 16 - although in some cases it's identifying people involved with the journal in some formal capacity. However my assertion is that it should not be cited at all. So even if we ignore incidental references I'd like to take that 5 and make it a 0. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Especially the article that contends that east and south-east Asian women are biologically more attractive than Black women needs to be off this encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You don't really need to ask permission to remove fringe stuff supported by fringe sources from mediocre publishers (MDPI). You can just do it if you want to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I've past experience removing fringe sources that are "journals" and was pretty much immediately reverted because it came from a journal. In my experience, when dealing with sources that claim academic credentials it's best to first demonstrate that they're clearly unreliable and gain consensus for that before you start cutting. That way you can point back to the discussion and go, "I know they're a journal, here's a discussion about why they're not a usable journal." Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This resource should never be used unless there are third-party expert and reliable independent sources referencing it. No indication that it functions as anything but an outlet for WP:PROFRINGE without context. Compare the Journal of Scientific Exploration. jps (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course the journal should not be used to make claims about intra-scientific consensus... I see no reason, however, why it could not be included in articles on, themselves, highly controversial topics. The comparison to a journal publishing about ufos is, frankly, disingenuous. Roggenwolf (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

How is the comparison disingenuous? jps (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems the main problem with the Journal is that it is immoral, and not that it is unreliable. The anonymity is an issue as well, but no one has mentioned any facts they got wrong. I don't see why this can't be used as a source for controversial opinions. If an article wanted to discuss the arguments for eugenics, then that might be a good source. Arguments about WP:Due should be made on a case by case basis. It is possible an article receives a lot of attention from outside sources, that increases its relevance. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The journal also makes no attempt to vet the reliability of its contributors. A "controversial idea" according to their definition is one that is simply not widely accepted and generally eschewed in the relevant academic circles. There is no indication to me, for example, that the journal would reject papers that purported to show the Earth is flat or that climate change is not caused by human activity or that there is evidence that homeopathy worked. As long as the author could convince the editor that such "opinions" were on the out-and-out, they seem to be willing to give space for controversial ideas.

This is far removed from those journals which have as normal editorial philosophy that the judgement of expert reviewers is what is necessary for publication. That is a fundamental feature of editorial review for reliable sources. This source explicitly rejects that standard. As such, the only thing it is reliable for is a demonstration of what it has published. Beyond that, there is no means to decide that anything found in that venue is worth anything save that there might be third-party vetting identifying diamonds in the rough, for example. This is a classic instance of WP:PROFRINGE sourcing.

jps (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Have they published anything saying the earth is flat? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Digression. TL;DR: No, but once argued against censoring flat earthers.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yup. [53] You might argue that this was done "only for argument's sake", but it's an explicit endorsement that such ideas should be afforded space in a way that, if adopted universally, would make it very difficult for us to suss out reliable from unreliable points. jps (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC) What? Come on, this is ridiculous. The paper is about speech on campus. It demonstratively reproduces flat earth arguments (which it calls "stupid ideas") as an illustration of weaknesses in anti-platforming arguments. There is absolutely no ambiguity about whether the paper argues that the earth is flat. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC) You're wrong. The paper explicitly argues that censoring the idea that the Earth is flat is wrong to do. The paper explicitly argues that we should allow such ideas to be platformed in spite of opinions that the idea is "stupid". The authors do not claim the idea is wrong and they present the idea as worthy of presentation. jps (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Yes, the paper argues against censorship of "stupid ideas", including that the earth is flat, which it calls "even more stupid" than Time Cube. This is not even on the same disc-shaped planet as arguing that the earth is flat. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC) You asked if they published anything saying that the earth is flat. I showed that they did. Now you are trying to change the goalposts because the authors think the idea is "stupid" that they didn't publish the idea. jps (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC) You did not show that they published that the earth is flat! You showed that they published a paper arguing against the censorship of stupid ideas such as the belief that the earth is flat. These are very different positions. Describing a view is not the same as adopting, endorsing, or perpetuating it. In some cases (like this one!), it's a step in criticizing it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC) You asked if they published anything saying that the Earth is flat. They did. They did so in order to argue that providing space for such ideas is in line with which the journal itself aligns. jps (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC) jps thinks the JOCI published that the earth is flat. Did I just say that the JOCI published that the earth is flat? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Why am I even doing this? Your creative definition aside, no, the Journal of Controversial Ideas has not published any paper claiming (better?) that the Earth is flat. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC) So are you now saying that you weren't asking the question in good faith, then? jps (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC) I'm not even going to bother rereading this to figure out where you're pulling this from. No, I was asking if the journal published actual fringe flat earth shit, and you showed me a paper arguing that flat earthers, whose ideas are explicitly denounced, are among those whose bad ideas should not be censored on college campuses. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC) You seem to think that when a journal talks about literal flat earth shit that it's okay if it is dressed up in, "but I think it is really stupid". This is like Nazis who give the wink and the nod when they talk about antisemitism. It's a normalizations. And the irony is that the paper makes the explicit case that such normalization is not an excuse to "censor" or, whatever. So the whole point of the paper is to allow for the presentation of "actual fringe flat earth shit". :) jps (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC) You are literally talking about flat earth shit right now. By your lumpy rhetorical device, this makes you a winking flat-earther. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC) By my "lumpy rhetorical device" it makes this threaded conversation unreliable for anything but our own opinions is what it does. jps (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Sure. Just because you attribute something doesn't mean you did not get that something said. jps (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC) LMFAO, thank you for this. You should edit your earlier comment with a little paranthetical note that says you were approaching the question like an evil-but-not-too-clever genie. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC) "Many people are saying..." jps (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Such a desperate misrepresentation of the paper’s stance on flat earth, and I know you (like everyone who’s gotten past colors and shapes class) know it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Funny. I don't feel desperate. Maybe you should update your model of other people's minds. jps (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC) jps, I love you like a brother, but that article says that those flat-earthers are "promoting the notion that our home planet is a giant disc. If science enables us to know anything, we know this is false." So sorry, but no. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC) I think I am not wrong in saying that the article insists that we allow for flat earthers to present their case. Rhetorically, this looks to me like the journal is making an argument for presenting the flat earth argument on its own merits. Oh, the authors, they have their opinions! But censorship is the ultimate evil -- not the fact that this idea is false. Is that about right? jps (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Allowing flat earthers to present their case, doesn't mean publishing them in a journal. It means that we shouldn't shout them down or punch everyone who says the earth is flat etc. Does it actually say "censorship is the ultimate evil"? One can believe that censorship is bad, and still think other things are worse. Do you actually believe that Flat Earthers should be censored? And by censored, I mean not allowed to self-publish. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I am not sure what you mean by Allowing flat earthers to present their case, doesn't mean publishing them in a journal. It is simply a fact that if you allow flat earthers to present their case in a journal, you have published them in a journal. My apologies if it seems I am being hyperbolic in adopting the world of the article as the sum total of the author's opinions about everything. I think in the article the author identifies nothing worse than censorship (in their judgement). Yes. Flat Earthers should be censored on Wikipedia. See WP:WEIGHT. They should not be allowed to "self-publish" at this website. jps (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment Nom, please provide examples of usage for WP:AP2. Seems unlikely to me.

It is not particularly helpful that you found a dozen examples of politically untoward social science / philosophy. This is exactly the kind of content such a journal is meant to contain.

Please also note that not all contributors are anonymous. There have been a number of notable academics publishing through them. I'm strongly opposed to formally deprecating it. Roggenwolf (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I would think the DEI article would be covered under AP2 - would it not? Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I'd formally declare it unreliable but it should probably be recognized that for 99% of topics it would not be due weight by its nature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

99% of topics... Yes, I agree. But it should not be an issue to include a sentence summarizing one such paper in the, say, controversy or reception section of an already controversial scientific topic. Roggenwolf (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Given the fringe claims the Journal puts forward, it'd consider the source unreliable. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Generally unreliable. Any anonymous article in this publication should be considered unreliable since there clearly is no editorial oversight ensuring proper methodologies have been followed. Any article with a real byline should be treated as WP:SPS, so if a subject-matter expert chooses for some reason to publish there and attach their own name to it, we can potentially use that where relevant and as limited by policy (i.e. not in BLPs per WP:SPSBLP). Roggenwolf's argument that we might use it for articles about controversial topics misses the point of WP:FRIND: this is precisely where the guideline tells us we need to avoid in-universe fringe sources. Generalrelative (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Why would an anonymous article have failed to undergo editorial oversight? The author would not be anonymous to the editors, and blind peer review is the norm anyway. - Bilby (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: my argument was that :none: of JCI's articles appear to receive proper editorial oversight. That's why we should treat it as equivalent to SPS, an idea also endorsed by ActivelyDisinterested below. Any subject-matter expert publishing there should be evaluated as WP:EXPERTSPS and anyone else, including any anonymous contributors, should be considered unreliable.

You may disagree, but I'm persuaded by the sources, e.g. those cited by XOR'easter and jps below. You've characterized these elsewhere as "don't like it" arguments but they are not. They are substantive, source-based arguments for the unrelaibility of JCI's editorial oversight.

(PS: I see that there's a lot of sniping going on right now. Y'all can miss me with that. I won't be responding further unless there's a point worth responding to.) Generalrelative (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

But JCS clearly states their review process, which incorproates blind peer review, editorial oversight, and a well respected editorial board. [54] I am lost as to why you think this means that they do not undergo proper editorial oversight when they clearly do. Can you provide some evidence that they publish without editorial review? Because it sounds to me as if your complain has no basis. - Bilby (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll respond again since this is clearly a good-faith question. My point is that while there is an editorial process, that editorial process is manifestly unreliable. That is, it lets methodologically unsound ideas through in the interest of some other criterion –– perhaps shock value, or owning the libs, or a genuine belief in the value of unrestrained platforming of silly ideas. I don't know.

Here is a quote from two highly regarded subject-matter experts, Eric Turkheimer and Kathryn Paige Harden (who chose to publish in JCI to refute a prior paper published there): [55]

Human intelligence and human evolution are controversial areas of scientific inquiry that require the highest levels of scientific rigor and editorial discretion, which are absent here.

Editorial discretion is absent here. Note what they didn't say. They didn't say that the paper they're refuting presented some scientific hypotheses that didn't stand up to further evidence. They explicitly refer to the paper they're refuting as pseudoscientific and castigate the journal for publishing it. The Chronicle of Higher Education sources cited by XOR'easter come to similar conclusions, though perhaps less stridently. Generalrelative (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that there is a significant difference between saying "there is no editorial oversight" and "editorial discretion is poor". If you had made the latter argument it would have been much easier to understand. - Bilby (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I said "no editorial oversight ensuring proper methodologies have been followed" but okay. I see how I could have stated that more clearly. Generalrelative (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Generally an unsuitable source I'm going to avoid strictly calling the source "unreliable" because it's possible (I haven't read it) that the articles are very well reasoned but due to politics the authors are concerned about putting their names on things. That they are anonymous isn't strictly my argument against usage, though it's a big negative. Instead, my concern is that, in general Wikipedia's take on subjects should be rather vanilla. This is an encyclopedia, not a latest trends and ideas source. If an idea is controversial to the point where the author can't say it aloud, then perhaps that idea shouldn't be included here. A well reasoned argument in such a source my provide a reason to given less weight to an argument who's authors are public with their ideas but that falls into the arguments against including something that is WP:V (a perfectly reasonable thing to do). Just as OR on talk pages is fine but cannot appear in an article, a source like this might make very solid arguments but should not appear in Wikipedia as a RS. Usage as a reference when discussed by a cited RS would of course be it's own case by case thing. Springee (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah you'll note that I'm not rushing to AfD for Journal of Controversial Ideas (though giving it some TLC is on my long-term to-do list) nor am I angling to remove mention of it from a page like Peter Singer - I just don't think the journal's articles should be used as sources for the topics they discuss. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Generally unreliable WP:FRINGE journal with no mainstream academic support. They allow authors to use pseudonyms which is an obvious red flag. They published an article claiming bestiality is "Morally Permissible" [56]. They have also published an article by a pedophile defending non-offending pedophilia [57]. This type of nonsense wouldn't pass peer review anywhere else. They have no editor in chief, nor a statistical advisor. They will publish anything for media attention. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I read the bestiality one and, frankly, it'd be best positioned as a piece of poorly advised satire trying to equate bestiality to the trans experience. The idea of treating it as if it were a work of philosophy is frankly offensive to the discipline with how shoddy it was. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Most of the editorial board are utilitarians who put out useless "thought experiments" or those who have co-authored articles with Singer, so there is some COI there. Some of the others are those that have complained about "wokeness". I am familiar with most of the names on the list, the only one that makes no sense to me is Susan Blackmore. Odd to see her name on that list. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Blackmore has some spicy takes on drugs that would definitely constitute "controversial ideas" although from the opposite direction from the usual array of eugenicists and scientific racists who tend to gravitate to "heterodox" academia. Maybe that was the avenue of her interest in this. Or maybe it was something entirely different. For all I know, she owed Singer a favour. LOL. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy Minus the fringe question, is a source being immoral really a reason it is unreliable, especially in philosophy of all disciplines? The University of California Press published a book defending pedophiles in the past few years as well. If they're unreliable it's because they're fringe but I don't really know why making immoral arguments would get someone declared unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliable (at least for what it would be used for). I'm curious about in what way these articles would be used such that reliability is a problem. I've checked every current use of the journal, and only once is it used to reference a claim (specifically "KAU has faced criticism for allegedly paying highly cited researchers from around the world to cite KAU as a "secondary academic affiliation" in order to boost their rankings."):[58]. The article being referenced is Saudi Universities Rapid Escalation in Academic Ranking Systems: Implications and Challenges Both authors are published academics, the journal is peer reviewed, and the editoral board looks fine. I'm not seeing any red flags. Is the fear that this will be used to say "controversial idea is ok"? If so, I do not see that it would be used in that way. Are there any examples of it being used inappropriatly? - Bilby (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is at the level of the journal. Frankly the article about Saudi universities may be bromine but we cannot trust it because of the journal's untrustworthy editorial practices and the involvement of its founders in WP:FRINGE topics. I would not prejudice an author who has published there for work published in reputable outlets. This journal is not a reputable outlet. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

In what way are there untrustworthy editorial practises? This is not a predatory journal. The editorial board is impressive. The editorial polices and peer review process is sound. They are going to publish things we do not agree with, and they will write on fringe topics, but that does not mean it is unreliable. What specific editorial practises are untrustworthy? - Bilby (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The journal was set up to provide space for ideas that could not be published in other journals. It does this by adopting an editorial position that reviewers who reject papers are not fit to sit in judgement over these controversial ideas. jps (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like backflipping. Can you quote from their editorial policy? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like sealioning, but here you go: [59] The decision to accept or reject a paper will be made by the editors and will be based primarily on the comments and judgments of the reviewers, though the three editors will also ask for advice from appropriately qualified members of the editorial board. jps (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Aspersion noted, eyes rolled. How does this quote indicate unreliability? Because it doesn't include the word "expert"? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It rejects the expert evaluation if the editors think that's a good idea. jps (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you get that from the last quoted phrase? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. jps (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't say that they'll override expert rejections. "Advice" could mean anything in terms of the "decision to accept or reject a paper", and there's no reason to believe it means superior scientific review. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

They reserve the right to publish over the objections of the reviewers. jps (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Nope, doesn't say that. Says reviewers will seek advice from the editors. Your reading leaps. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You can deny it all you want. Let others read the exchange and maybe let them decide which of us has identified the editorial policy correctly. jps (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't say the reviewers will seek advice from editors, it says the editors will primarily base their decision to accept/reject on the judgement of reviewers, but that the three editors will also seek advice from other editors. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if it's true that It rejects the expert evaluation if the editors think that's a good idea, that would not make the journal unique, or even particularly unusual. As our article on Scholarly peer review puts it, "During this process, the role of the referees is advisory. The editor(s) is typically under no obligation to accept the opinions of the referees".

This makes me think that the problem here is merely that they publicly admit to doing what everyone else does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You are reading far too much into a standard process. For example, Nature states that the final decision is made by the editors [60] Springer also describes the as their process for review "Editors will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision, but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein" [61] It is normal in quality journals for editors to use the peer review process to inform the final decision, but not necessarily to make it. - Bilby (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

As my last engagement with this inane thread where I’ve sufficiently voiced my stance, I co-sign this comment and thank you for pulling some other papers’ policies. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliability stems entirely from reputation. Journal policies that revolve around personal preference are looked at askance, yes, even when they come from such reputable journals as Nature. There is a reason that Nature has the reputation of "everything you read in Nature is wrong." Their goal is to publish work that pushes the envelope for good reason. And they have had some doozies in the past.

Interestingly, we don't take Nature papers when they first come out at face value. It is only after they have generated the appropriate confirmation from third parties do we use them as foundational work. But for every Nature paper that leads to Nobel Prizes and high citations, there are perhaps dozens which amount to fizzling nonsense.

I have proposed nothing more here than to apply the same standards to this Journal. That unless there are third-party references to the works therein published, they don't deserve inclusion in Wikipedia.

jps (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

What you said was it adopts "an editorial position that reviewers who reject papers are not fit to sit in judgement over these controversial ideas". Clearly, this was a misreading of the editorial policy, given that the same editorial policy that you described this as is used by all major academic journals. But ok, if I understand what you are writing now, your concern is that you do not suppoprt using articles from a peer-reviewed journal unless those articles have been cited elsewhere. While the seems to go well beyond standard editorial practice, I think we can work with that in this case. Before using an article we should confirm that it has been cited elsewhere. - Bilby (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Most academic journals will not accept a paper over the objections of the reviewers. They may allow for arguments that the reviewers were biased, or whatever, and allow for a different reviewer, but they will not publish against the recommendations of the reviewers. There is a suggestion (published in JOCI no less, referenced below) that JOCI will do just that. I know that Nature does that. jps (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Generally unsuitable for Wikipedia's purposes, by its very nature. We are here, first and foremost, to summarize mainstream and consensus thought. The people behind this journal basically went out of their way to create the Journal of Ideas Not Viable on Wikipedia. Using it on a bland topic would be at best redundant; using it on a controversial one is all but guaranteed to weight a fringe view out of proportion. The Journal of Scientific Exploration or Physics Essays are better points of comparison than MDPI: in the latter case, there is just a low standard of peer review, so that publishing an article there is not really better than posting a preprint, whereas in the former, there's a deliberate bias to what we may politely call "contrarianism". Use should be restricted to the usual intersection of WP:FRINGE and WP:ABOUTSELF as said above, and only then in cases where other considerations indicate that a citation is genuinely due. XOR'easter (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This is how I would tend to read it. But this does not make it unreliable - just not something we would typically have cause to use. And that is born out in practise, as currently it is only being used to source a single claim, and that claim is solely that criticism exists and is backed by two other sources. I am not seeing a reliablity concern, but simply a source that has limited use. - Bilby (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'd call it unreliable, too. Does it have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? No, it doesn't. I am not convinced it has much of a reputation at all, except maybe for tedious edgelordism [62][63]. Here's a take from the Chronicle of Higher Education back in 2021, when the JCI finally came out with an issue: Eyes did roll in some quarters. A bunch of Twitter wags floated tongue-in-cheek ideas for their own faux-controversial essays (example: “Kant was just ok”). There was more substantive criticism too. One philosopher dismissed it as a “safe-house for ideas that couldn’t withstand moral scrutiny the first time around.” [64] And from a CHE opinion column in 2024: The problem is that the Journal of Controversial Ideas emphasizes noncomformity above other goals. It sidesteps the necessary process of engaging with and responding to ethical critiques and deprioritizes the downstream effects of its publications on the populations they study. By delighting in counterintuitiveness and mere controversy, the journal places shock value over rigorous research, and undermines the thoughtful exploration of complexity. In doing so, the journal further marginalizes controversial viewpoints by reducing them to a form of scholarly political gamesmanship that rewards conservative scholars for “owning the Libs.” [...] The Journal of Controversial Ideas sets out to advance knowledge, but instead it merely turns reasonable questions into outrageous positions and attempts to demonstrate rhetorical prowess. [65] XOR'easter (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I am aware that some people do not like it. The idea of a journal covering contraversial ideas is always going to upset people, and some of that would be justified. But in saying that it does not have a reputation for being reliable - can you follow that up with examples of problems in the publication? Have they had to retract any articles? Are there reports of poor editorial standards? I searched retraction watch, but couldn't find anything. - Bilby (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem isn't that people look at the journal and are "upset"; I don't think that's a fair summary of either CHE item. Scholars aren't angry about it. They're disappointed, indifferent, and bored. I don't know that the JCI has had to retract anything, but I don't see how that matters one way or the other here. Retractions by themselves don't make a journal bad, and the lack of them doesn't make a journal good. XOR'easter (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No, but if you are going to say it is unreliable, you need some reason for saying that. So far, I have seen a lot people saying that they don't like the content, but no evidence of actual unreliability being posted. I am absolutly in support of marking a peer reviewed journal as unsuitable because it has evidence of being unreliable. I just want to see that case being made first. - Bilby (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the board in all its magnanimity published a "controversial opinion" that it was publishing unreliable pseudoscience: [66]. If the charges of those authors are true, most other journals would have not published or retracted an article. If the charges are not true, most other journals would not have published the riposte. So there is indication here that something is unreliable in the journal. This serves as the demonstration proof. The editorial concept of the journal itself all but guarantees that "unreliable" ideas are not cause for refusing publication. This is more-or-less how I would describe an "unreliable source". jps (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

There's such a thing as "unreliable ideas"? If they are willing to publish counterpoints to other papers that they have published previously, then that sounds like a positive, and not as if they are pushing a particular agenda. - Bilby (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course there are unreliable ideas. jps (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not comparing it to MDPI, it is published by MDPI so I'm pointing out the publisher already indicates it's going to be mediocre. The scope, of course, makes it even worse for our purposes. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Their website runs on some software by MDPI ("JAMS"), but they say they are published by the "Foundation for Freedom of Thought and Discussion" [67]. (I don't think that foundation does anything other than publish the journal.) XOR'easter (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Generally unreliable. Outlets that regularly publish pro-fringe material are routinely classified as unreliable. I can't see how this journal is any different. JoelleJay (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it as pro-fringe. It seems the intent is to discuss controversial ideas, which could be difficult to discuss elsewhere. If it was to push controversial ideas I'd approach it differently. - Bilby (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The thing is if you just want to say eugenics is wrong or won't work, or bestiality is wrong or come at a controversial idea from the mainstream viewpoint you're unlikely to publish in this journal. It's only if you have a "hot take" against the mainstream that you're going to publish there. This might not always be saying we should do something or there is evidence in support of something but it would say least be in the form of we shouldn't just dismiss eugenics as nonsense like the mainstream view. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that philosophers and others should have outlets where they can discuss controversial views. If there was an article pushing eugenics, I'd have a problem with that article. But if there was an article exploring eugenics, published in a non-predatory double-blind peer-reviewed journal with an outstanding editorial board, then I wouldn't have a problem with using it to source the existence of an argument. The issue I have is that I have seen no real evidence of a problem. People claim it has editorial issues, but can't point to an example. They claim that it is used inappropriately on Wikipedia, but I can barely find a single use, and nothing that represents an issue. Thus the only argument I can find is "we don't like that it publishes controversial ideas", and I would hate to deem a peer-reviewed academic journal unreliable because we do not like the topics it discusses.

Years ago I was working at a different university from where I am now, and two of the philosophers there published a satirical article along the lines of Swift's A Modest Proposal. They even called it "A Modest Proposal". I spent the next two weeks fielding emails from angry people insiting that we should fire the philosophers for expressing such a horrible idea, completely missing the point of what they wrote. I do not want to end up in the same place here without genuine reasons. I will support defining this as unreliable if it is being misused or if there are problems with the editorial practises, just as I would with any journal, but I am waiting on that evidence. - Bilby (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliable with caveats. This is a journal with an impeccable editorial board, and most of the authors are established academics. This is a not an outlet to push outrageous ideas; it is a forum for philosophers to pick apart and interrogate traditional beliefs. That's what philosophers do. Claims of lax editorial practices are not based on evidence and seem to be wrong. Arguments based on the journal publishing ideas we don't like are inadmissible; there is not and has never been such a criterion for reliability. First caveat: It is OK to deprecate anonymous articles, since the expertise of the author is an important criterion for us. Such articles are indicated by the journal and they are rather few (none at all in the 2024 volume). Second caveat: The majority of the articles count as opinion pieces for us. Although we cite opinion pieces all the time, they have to be attributed and some opinions might be too fringe to mention. A few of the articles are more than opinion pieces; for example, this article contains a lot of factual information and the author is eminently qualified, so I don't see why it can't be cited for some of its facts. Zero^talk 11:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece saying that California researchers should be allowed to keep the human remains of the victims of a genocide because, apparently, the study of California history is more important than treating the survivors of genocide with basic dignity. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a mixture of opinion and fact and I only wrote that its facts can be cited. I'm not interested in responding to your characterisation. Zero^talk 01:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that can be considered FRINGE, because it is discussing current or recent practice and as far as I can tell is an issue of morality, not science. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

How could this possibly be misused on Wikipedia? To support a wikivoice moral statement? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Generally treat as WP:opinion and weigh WP:DUEness - Journal articles are usually WP:PRIMARY by default, though articles here are a mix of both primary data and secondary opinion-ating. this journal seems to be more about publishing commentary in soft fields like humanities. Science and other fields generally publish more reliable, less opinionated data that congregates around non-controversial hypotheses. If an article here proposes a very controversial opinion in a contentious field, it should be compared to other opinion pieces folks put up. Any controversial idea by definition does not have broad support from the field and should be considered in that context. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

How are journal articles primary? Sure, some of the more scientific ones are mostly data, but they even have analysis. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Per policy, research articles are primary for the results they report and any novel interpretations (but can include secondary content in e.g. the background section in the form of discussion of other published work). This is consistent with how journal articles are considered in academia. JoelleJay (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand. We were talking about journal articles, not research articles. The source you linked lists research articles under primary sources, but lists journal articles under secondary, noting that it varies based on field. I think this would be very field dependent, which I was implying in my first comment. I think in some fields, "novel interpretations" are the bulk of scholarship, whereas some are data heavy, and others a mix. Most journal articles that I have read have been history related, where I believe "primary sources" usually means historical documents or other evidence, although it can also be applied to data. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I originally wrote all journal articles are primary, as i was thinking only of research journals. But yeah, some of the social sciences are more like opinion columns.

In general, highly fringe hypotheses or controversial ideas are by definition not fully accepted by the scientific field. I think these articles are more like opinion pieces, and there dueness is a major concern if they are asserting a fringe idea. I have no clue about reliability for assertion of facts, and think that if there is an important fact that is discussed in the field, it should be well known in other journals that aren't advertising themselves as "controversial ideas". Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean it's undoubtedly a WP:FRINGE publisher, that it's reason to exist. If a WP:EXPERTSPS were to publish using the journal it could be reliable for intext attributed opinion, DUE would obviously apply. The anonymous pieces wouldn't be reliable though. Also obviously anything from it would have to be used in the context of mainline academy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not an SPS. I'm not sure why WP:EXPERTSPS would need to apply, although I can see why we should not use anonymous articles. - Bilby (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

In cases where the publisher is being discounted but the author could still be a reliable source, the situation is the same as if it was self-published. I would say the same would apply of a reputable author deciding not publish in predatory journal, for instance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It is an interesting argument. In this case we're not looking at a predatory journal. I do think it is worth a wider discussion unrelated to one journal, though. - Bilby (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not a novel idea. It's been applied in other cases where a publishers is less reliable than the author it publishes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

My concern is that if a publisher was genuinely unreliable, could the article have been manipulated in ways that the author did not approve? If you self publish only you are responsible for the content. For good or ill, it says what you wanted it to say. If you do not, you sacrifice some control. So I'd much rather use a preprint if I have a genuine concern with the publisher than treat something that the author did not have full control over as self published. - Bilby (talk) Bilby (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

That would be the difference between generally unreliable and deprecation. If the publisher can't be trusted to publish honestly, an issue beyond reliability, then it should be deprecated. If the source is unreliable, because it lacks a reputation for accuracy and fact checking for instance (there could be many reason it's not reliable for wikipedia's purposes), then it could still be trusted as a platform for an author to publish through. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

That makes some sense, but honestly I would be loathe to treat something that is no self-published as if it was, because the author has surrended control over what they wrote. If it is a case of "unreliable, but we can still use it", I'd rather just argue that we treat the journal on a case-by-case basis than treat articles from it as an SPS, or see if the author has published the article seperatly and use that. - Bilby (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

If you're treating a source on a case by case basis, and are not considering the publisher as it's generally unreliable, what do you base you assessment on? I would say the author would be the best option. Also although an author gives up some control when publishing, they give up some control not all control. If the publisher wanted to alter the work in some major way before publishing them the author could decide not to publish with them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I do see where you are coming from. But I know of many people who have complained that what was published had been altered from what they submitted. We've all heard those strories, I'm sure. Which is why this approach makes me uncomfortable. - Bilby (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliability is always a sliding scale, the more contentious or problematic the content the more high quality it's source needs to be. Using the work of experts published in otherwise generally unreliable sources as EXPERTSPS is something that will be fine for somethings and not for others. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 04:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I really haven't seen any evidence of pro-fringe content here. No, peer review is not mutually exclusive with publishing a philosophy paper that arrives at a very unpopular moral conclusion, and Wikipedia does not state moral claims in Wikivoice. What problems have emerged or would emerge from using this source? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliable; generally treat as opinion given the great editorial board and the fact that the “fringe positions” opponents have been able to produce are all just scary moral positions that Wikipedia would/should never repeat in wikivoice anyways. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

You do understand that eugenics and scientific racism are not "just scary moral positions" but are, in fact, pseudoscience that falls firmly within WP:FRINGE, right? Like even if you want to argue that Wikipedia should be an entirely amoral and dispassionate dispenser of expert opinion, these two topics, one of which was the founding basis for the journal and the other of which it regularly entertains, are, in fact, fringe academic topics by Wikipedia's definition. This is clear to you, right? Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

First of all, dial it back, because I’m not interested in being wailed at. Being pro-eugenics is indeed a moral position, not an error of facts. Nobody has shared any incidence of the JOCI publishing pseudoscience. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

In the latest JOCI, this article on immigration and intelligence is pseudoscience [68]. To their credit at least they allowed Eric Turkheimer to publish a commentary on said paper [69], "We contrast their pseudoscientific approach with valid scientific methods. Human intelligence and human evolution are controversial areas of scientific inquiry that require the highest levels of scientific rigor and editorial discretion, which are absent here." The pseudoscience paper was co-written by two far-right fringe academics Heiner Rindermann and James Thompson.

A month before their paper came out in JOCI, Rindermann had his paper retracted from another journal, "The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised about the methodology and dataset used in this research. Independent post-publication peer review has confirmed fundamental flaws in the use of student assessment studies as a measure of IQ or cognitive ability, and in the prominence of individual examples taken from the author's life". [70]. This is fraudulent research, no journal wants to publish it. JOCI is basically a dumping ground for all sorts of garbage and anti-science. They published a paper by a pedophile. They will publish anything that no good journal will publish. There is a serious lack of rigour, the journal doesn't belong on Wikipedia. There are better journals that cover WP:Fringe content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm citing someone from above: Generally unsuitable for Wikipedia's purposes, by its very nature. I agree. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliable (and particularly wherever a section or paragraph directly discusses a relevant controversy). I should have really made this more clear in the above (with my old acc name): of course this journal is unlikely, though also not impossible, to find good use in an article lede etc., but its articles often do give good overviews over some long-standing academic controversies and the like. ChopinAficionado (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

We should also be careful not to casually expand WP:FRINGE to politicized fields of science. ChopinAficionado (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Which fields exactly are you referring to? Because this journal dabbles in scientific racism (fringe) arguments in favor of eugenics (fringe), arguments favoring sex-based difference as invalidating the social construction of gender (fringe) a paper which was just "the HWOKES! use rhetorical lampshades too (no scientific merit attempted) and the paper about bestiality was, as I mentioned, an attempt at a transphobic satire and had no scientific merit. So can you please clarify? Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable fringe journal. This is a journal whose mission is explicitly giving a platform to ideas that are such fucking nonsense that they can't get published anywhere else in the name of free speech. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether this journal might serve as a good indicator that any view published in it is not accepted by mainstream scholarship, and therefore UNDUE (except for ABOUTSELF sorts of material).

@Simonm223, years ago, I found our article on Medical Hypotheses to be very helpful in evaluating a source, and I would encourage you to work on Journal of Controversial Ideas for the sake of future Wikipedia editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It's on my extended to-do list. LOL. Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I checked out one of the papers and have concluded that its description in the original list of complaints above was a thoroughly uncharitable misinterpretation, so I'm now skeptical that the papers found in this journal are quite as bad as described. However, I think the journal occupies a space between WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY, and so are unlikely to be usable for much Wikipedia content. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Generally reliable with attribution for subject matter expert opinion/analysis: WP:RSOPINION and WP:DUE. Treat as similar to The Conversation (website) (see WP:THECONVERSATION). Rather than myopically hyperfixating on the most hyper-partisan culture war issue of the day, let's take a broader view. It's not pseudonymous, it merely offers authors the option to publish pseudonymously should they so choose. Authors of recent articles include anthropologist Elizabeth Weiss writing about controversies in anthropology, literary scholar Pamela L. Caughie writing about controversial words in education, philosopher Raja Halwani on sex, gender, and sexual orientation, philosopher David Benatar on controversial ideas themselves, and a 29-author treatise in defense of merit in science whose diverse authors include Anna Krylov, Jerry Coyne, Peter R. Schreiner, John McWhorter, and Peter Boghossian (I realize that some Wikipedians may not like some of the views of some of the authors, but dislike is not a valid reason to categorically dismiss a scholar's contribution). Contrary to popular opinion, the JCI is not, in fact, a journal consisting entirely of far-right, racist pseudonymous authors advocating eugenics and trans-exclusionary radical zoophilia. The authors I mentioned above would be likely be cited in a heartbeat should their same works appear in a news article or their own blog per WP:EXPERTSPS. It may well be the case that not every article in JCI needs citing anywhere on Wikipedia, regardless of the author, but in this discussion I see people missing the forest for the trees, and forgetting, that, yes, topics published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas, will tend to be, surprise surprise, controversial. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Bad RfC/Mistrial, reliable with caveats. This whole thread has been nothing but poisoning the well, over and over. It's homing in on articles that (to borrow an analogy from law) fail to clear the bar for relevance. All the examples here have a huge prejudicial value that outweighs any possible probative value.

When we ask if a scientist or journal can be considered a reliable source, we focus on their factual reliability, not their personal integrity or controversial opinions. To take an extreme example, Erwin Schrödinger's published papers clearly count as reliable sources. Schrodinger was a brilliant physicist whose insights revolutionized quantum mechanics. He was also a serial rapist and pedophile. If I came to RSN and asked "Should we consider papers by X reliable? By the way, they're also a serial rapist and pedophile" I would clearly be poisoning the well and (rightly) pilloried for it.

What I can't understand is how nobody noticed now that it's a journal instead of a person. Does publishing one author's opinions on bestiality reflect in any way on the journal's factual or scientific reliability? Well, does the article at any point make a single substantially false statement of fact? As far as I can tell, it doesn't. It discusses purely ethical and philosophical arguments. So why in god's name was it brought up here? I see zero reason for this except as an attempt to smear the journal. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC Science-Based Medicine

Is the blog Science-Based Medicine in whole or in part, a self-published source? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment for context: Note that a prior RfC has found a previous consensus has found that Science-Based Medicine is considered WP:GREL and not considered WP:SPS. See WP:SBM for more details at WP:RSN. Raladic (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, is there a reason that you chose not to list this RfC on the Maths, science, and technology list? If not, would you mind adding that topic area to the RfC template? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, Raladic added it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Responses

• Not SPS - Per the previous RfC, there seems to be no reason to rehash this. The editorial practices of SBM show that they do not act like an SPS and that has not changed since the prior RfC. So there appears to be no reason to deviate it from it now. What is the rationale for this repeat RfC other than to try to discredit it? SBM is one of the watchdog media that help keep WP:FRINGE science out of Wikipedia. Raladic (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment (Summoned by bot), @Iljhgtn has there been in discussion of this on this noticeboard since the last RFC? TarnishedPath^talk 03:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  OP created different RFC here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"Science-Based_Medicine"_blog which was closed as a bad RFC as it was not neutral and editors pointed out the lack of RFCBEFORE on a reasoning of why this needs to be rehashed. Given that that one was just closed and now this new one was immediately opened again without any RFCBEFORE discussion, it similarly appears to be looking for a problem without information as to why this RfC is here without any new evidence that should change the established consensus of the community. Raladic (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  There was a discussion from a few years ago listed on RSP that seemed very mixed as to whether SBM is a SPS Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• SPS. Per what they wrote on their site: "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" [71] If people are able to publish directly, by themselves, without being reviewed, then that meets the definition of SPS and we need to treat it that way for BLPs. Noting that this only means that it can't be used for direct statements about living people, but can still be used for statements about the truth (or, more often, otherwise) of views held by living people, the views of the authors about living people, and statements about fringe theories themselves. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  You're citing a literal case where their editorial board retracted a published statement - that is literally acting like a non-SPS such as newspapers do and shows editorial oversight. This wasn't "random stranger published directly", it was a trusted author, and yet, their editorial board decided to retract the published article at the very link explaining their editorial oversight - After careful review, the editors of SBM decided to retract this book review. Because we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness, occasionally corrections need to be made post-publication. In this case we felt there were too many issues with the treatment of the relevant science, and leaving the article up would not be appropriate given the standards of SBM., so this looks like exactly what you'd expect from a non-SPS. You basically just made the case why they are not an SPS. Raladic (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  In that case, they literally stated that they literally allow some people to self-publish on their site. That they might then retract the story if later they find a problem is a good thing. But it does not change how that article appeared there. Medium, for example, is a self-publishing platform, yet they can and do remove articles. This does not mean that we need to treat Medium as if it is not self published. SBM is definitely better than Medium, and I am confident that they have much higher standards. However, as they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  "As they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs". Which people though specifically? Where are the examples of this claim? Please list 5-10 authors at SBM who have self-published articles without any form of review. I do not see any good examples only one article from Harriet Hall that was retracted. Hall is now deceased. I would like to see the other examples. From what I can see none exist. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  It would seem that most of the content is self-published by only a small number (4) of writers, and yes, without any prior review as mentioned about by Bilby. The reliability is also debatable, but the self-publishing aspect of this blog seems as undeniable as WP:SKYISBLUE. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  You haven't provided any evidence of self-publishing. Show us links to the self-published articles, I want to see them. Links and specific names please! Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  This just seems like sealioning but here you go... [72][73][74] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  You have linked to several articles by Steven Novella. Where does it claim on those articles they are self-published? David H. Gorski obviously reviewed those articles, he is listed in the link you cited below as the other editor. There are two editors so this isn't self-publishing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Where are you seeing that? SBM seems to say the opposite, that Novella's articles are not checked by Gorski... Gorski also wouldn't be the publisher in that scenario, you're confusing an editor with the publisher. Novella's publisher would be Novella (either as founder and chief editor or as President of the society). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  The website says "SBM is entirely owned and operated by the New England Skeptical Society" [75]. So if you are after the publisher, not the editors it is that Society. Novella is listed as the current President of the New England Skeptical Society, he is not the publisher. We know that SBM has two current editors. The New England Skeptical Society that publishes SBM has 25 employees including its web manager Mike Lacelle. Its director is Jay Novella [76]. This isn't a single man self-publishing house, an organization is behind it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Is Jay Novella related to Steven Novella? If so this is getting worse, not better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes it's his son but he is not the web manager for the website so he is not the publisher. He is the Director of Marketing and Technology [77]. My understanding is that all the websites owned by the Society are managed by Mike Lacelle who is listed as the web manager. So if you are looking for the specific man that actually publishes the articles after they are edited it would be him. Like I said the organization has 25 employees, there could be others involved. It's not just Steven Novella in his bedroom publishing this website. Novella is a very busy man, he wouldn't have time for that! Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, Jay and Steve are brothers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the correction. The dude looks young for his age, fooled me. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  What is your source for the organization having 25 employees? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not SPS This isn't a self-published source, the articles are reviewed before being published by an editorial board. The four current editors are: Steven P. Novella, David H. Gorski, Kimball C. Atwood, Mark Crislip. Guest editors can submit articles to the website, all of which are reviewed before publication. Critics of SBM are jumping a single retracted article that this is an SPS. Seems like a bad case of cherry-picking. There is no good evidence this is an SPS. Update There are two editors not four my mistake. The publisher is the New England Skeptical Society. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't match what is currently on their website[78], they appear to only have two current editors who are also the main writers (thats where we get into SPS territory). One of those editors also appears to be the leader of the organization which publishes these two blogs, thats how we get even deeper into SPS territory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. So they have two editors currently. If they have two editors they are not self-published. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Who is Steven P. Novella's publisher if not Steven P. Novella? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The link you cited says Steven Novella, MD — Founder and Executive Editor and David H. Gorski, MD, PhD — Managing Editor. They clearly review each others articles, this means it isn't self-published by a single individual. There used to be more editors in the past but some of them died. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

In this case it does appear to be self-published by a single individual, hiring your friends as editors doesn't make your blog not your blog. Also just to be clear what SBM actually say is "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" so they clearly don't review each other's articles as a matter of course. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's much more than a single man. The SBM website is published by New England Skeptical Society, it says at SBM that they are "entirely owned and operated" by the Society. They have 25 employees currently. At SBM it doesn't claim that Steven Novella is the publisher it just says he is the "Founder and Executive Editor". If you want the exact publisher, it would be the New England Skeptical Society. As stated above, I am not convinced this fits the definition of self-publishing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The New England Skeptical Society, of which Novella is founder and president. Void if removed (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Their own statement was "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" [79] Given that, it is clear that in at least some cases, people can publish directly on SBM without being reviewed before publication. - Bilby (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• SPS, seems to be pretty cut and dried at least when it comes to Novella's pieces (remember SBM claims to be a blog, its generally presenting personal opinions... When its two expert editors want to publish their actual work they do not publish it there but in real journals). I would also note that this discussion should include the sister blog NeuroLogicaBlog. If anyone wants to disagree with me they can lay out what editorial checks and balances would apply to Novella. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Neurologica is an obvious self-published blog authored entirely by Novella such that I do not think further discussion on that issue is necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica have the exact same publisher. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Neurologica's writer is the same as the head of the New England Skeptical Society. It's obviously Steven Novella's personal blog, similar to Gorski's own Respectful Insolence. There's no reason to think it's not a self-published source, unlike SBM which has several editors and apparently does review of at least some of what it publishes (though apparently not all), which is why we are having this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Is it two or several? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  (How) does the following factor into your assessment that it's an SPS? In their discussion of "Why Dr. Harriet Hall’s review of Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage was retracted," they note that "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing," and that they "have mechanisms of quality control" for articles that are posted without prior review, including "clarification in the comments" and "corrections to the original text of the article." Their page about outside submissions says in part "The volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using an informal peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a 'rough and ready' peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission." FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella) this feels like inaccurate or outdated info and so high time for a review. GREL, sure, but as a group blog still an SPS, with seemingly no consistent publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. Void if removed (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  I was asking Horse Eye's Back, in part because they wrote "at least when it comes to Novella's pieces" and "it does appear to be self-published by a single individual," which suggests that perhaps they don't consider it SPS for other authors. I'm wondering this for Bilby as well, as they'd previously said "I think guest authors can be assumed not to be self-published." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  With Quackwatch we came to a similar position - articles published by the editor are self published, but articles on the site by other authors are not. I'm ok with something similar here. The only problem is that all they say is "trusted authors" can post directly. I would read that as safe to assume people who do not regularly have articles posted on the site would not be trusted, but it doesn't say only the editors are trusted to publish without prior review. Thus there may be some gray area between the two. - Bilby (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  The others are more a grey area for me, most of what we are currently using on wiki is pieces by Gorski and Novella... And we have discussions elsewhere about some guest authors like Harriet Hall not producing work of the same quality/rigor as Gorski and Novella. Its a bit of an odd situation, normally the editors are not also the authors and even when they are they're normally not the primary and most reliable authors. Its made extra odd because most of the editors/authors are subject matter experts so usable under EXPERTSPS no matter where we come down on general reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• SPS. It's a group blog with some guest authors. Having multiple contributors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Having guest authors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Retracting a post does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. This language in WP:SPS is particularly relevant: "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". As a pro-SBM editor argued in the aborted RfC, the need for SBM in Wikipedia is to enable wikivoice accusations of "grift, fraud and quackery" that cannot be sourced otherwise. In other words, the reason this group blog has been elevated to a reliable source is to work around NPOV. - Palpable (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see any evidence presented to back up the claim that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." It's not even clear to me how someone would go about studying that. Do you have any evidence that it's true? (And FWIW, the question of whether something is an SPS is distinct from whether it is independent or reliable.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  That is a direct quote from WP:SPS. - Palpable (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm aware of that. That someone added it to the WP:SPS text doesn't make it true, and since you're the one who chose to quote it, I'm asking you whether you have any evidence that it's true. For that matter, I'd be interested if you have thoughts about how one would go about studying it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  If you have a problem with WP:SPS the appropriate venue is WT:V - Palpable (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Do some people !voting here have a connection to the source? I see one editor referring to Steven Novella as "Steve" and another who may be affiliated with the New England Skeptical Society. I have seen some surprising interpretations of WP:COI in the past so I'm not sure if this is important, but thought it was worth noting. - Palpable (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  That is also a great point and worth investigating as part of any close here. Looks sus at the very least... Iljhgtn (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• SPS. I personally think this source is fine to use on BLPs, but there is no way to honestly read our (convoluted, strange) SPS guidelines and not come to the conclusion that it is one. It is a small group of people most of whom publish without prior review on a blog. That they make arguments we like does not make it not a blog. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• SPS. It's a group blog, but still a blog. Group blogs are specifically called out on WP:SPS. As noted above, SBM "allow[s] trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness". [80] The fact that they later retracted one article doesn't negate that the norm for "trusted authors" (probably including regulars, and definitely including the owners of the site such as Gorski and Novella) is to publish without any editorial review of the author's work. Hence, it is clearly by and large an SPS.

The claim that we need this to not be an SPS to effectively fight fringe and quackery is often made but I've never seen it backed up with an example of a fringe topic whose Wikipedia article would become credulous to pseudoscience without it. There are plenty of published and even academic sources that stuff like homeopathy is pseudoscientific, quackery, etc.; we are perfectly capable of sourcing something like "John Smith is an advocate of homeopathy,[1] a pseudoscientific practice[2][3]" in just about any case it is needed. SBM being an SPS also doesn't preclude its use in cases of WP:PARITY, as pro-fringe sources themselves are often SPS or otherwise poor. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The germ theory denialism article relies a decent amount on SBM. There are other sources, but until recently there wasn't much critical attention towards that strain of fringe, with SBM having been 10+ years ahead of the curve on describing the contours of its recent resurgence in alt-med communities. In the past few years others such as BBC News, Science Feedback, and Snopes discussed it, though often missing details such as its direct relation to the anti-vaccination movement. Don't know how much this as example changes the overall equation, but was the first to come to mind. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no shortage of reliable sources establishing that the germ theory was a huge advance in medicine and that we have basically incontrovertible proof of it for maybe thousands of diseases.

- Palpable (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

But using any of those sources to draw conclusions about the specific claims of a particular germ theory denialist would be against policy. XOR'easter (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Reliable SPS - can be used to describe fringe theories proposed by people as discredited or as quackery, including on a bio... should not be used to describe people themselves as quacks. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  Partial SPS - saw some of the info of arguments below from CoffeeCrumbs, and FactOrOpinon. I think the partial peer-review for some articles is... frustrating for a direct answer, but if there is peer-review on an article, it should stand as non-SPS material. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• SPS - We see at WP:SPS that an SPS has clear rules and restrictions, such as not being used ever for a WP:BLP, absolutely never. Some seem to be arguing that this obvious SPS should for some reason be granted an exception to the clear language of "never" and should be allowed on biographies of living persons in some cases (or in many). There are many reasons why that is not allowed generally, but we have now learned that this source is essentially the soapbox of primarily only two individuals, and most importantly, is not part of a media outlet or organization or inclusive of any external (or even further internal vetting). No, rather, it is a blog. An SPS blog. One perhaps run by scientists, two scientists, but a blog, nonetheless. Again, quoting directly from WP:SPS, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." So here we have this source, which is obviously beyond WP:SKYISBLUE a blog and a self-published source, we must then at the very least clarify that it absolutely must not be used in any circumstances for BLPs going forward, by the fact that it is so clearly a SPS.Iljhgtn (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Partly SPS and partly non-SPS - The site makes it clear that some authors can publish without prior review. I consider their articles to be self-published; for example, I put Steven Novella's articles in this category. The site also says that other articles undergo prior review (e.g., "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing"). I consider the latter to be non-self-published. Examples of authors who clearly aren't regular article authors there and whose articles presumably underwent prior review: Nikolas Dietis and Kiarash Aramesh. For some articles/authors, it's not clear to me whether they fall in the SPS category or instead in the non-SPS category. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• It seems that posts by some established contributors are self-published (as shown by links above), while guest contributors are not[81]. So the answer to whether SBM is an SPS or not is 'yes'. SPS and not SPS. Certainly the idea that it's fully SPS has no basis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• SPS: As noted by other contributors, SBM openly acknowledges that it often publishes content without prior peer review. Consequently, this makes it a self-published source (SPS), with the opinions expressed representing those of individual authors. Like any other SPS, its use requires caution, especially in articles about living people or controversial topics, where ensuring accuracy and neutrality is critical. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not SPS for reviewed articles They directly state they have editorial peer review for a number, if not most, of their articles. And only a select few don't go through that process (though appear to have after the fact review, considering the retraction, so even that seems to be in question). I will note that this appears to be yet another attempt by WP:FRINGE pushing editors to try and remove skeptical debunking media from negatively covering their fringe topics. Par for the course attempt, honestly. Silverseren^C 18:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's a day that ends in -Y.... XOR'easter (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  If we can't tell what is and isn't peer-reviewed and what is SPS material, is that not a problem? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  And how we will determine which articles have been reviewed? Also note that editorial review and peer review are different things and they do not appear to make a claim of peer review. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Right. These "Not SPS" !votes completely fail to respond to this criticism or address this perfectly valid and critically important counterpoint other than to say things along the lines of, "Come on man, THEY SAY that some stuff is reviewed! Let's take their word on it bro! Even if they are generally a blog, they are a trusted blog." Iljhgtn (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  Poor editorial control is a matter of reliability, but all matters of reliability don't have to be decided by classifying a source as self-published. It's accepted that other sources follow their stated editorial practices, and noone has shown why that shouldn't be the case here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not SPS for reviewed articles They've got editors, which sets it apart from a standard SPS. Those articles that could be self published are still reliable for most purposes anyway, since they are from subject matter experts. It is also worth noting that while it should not be used for biographical details in general, even if this were to be considered a SPS that would not rule it out for comments on science, medicine, or the reception of fringe ideas, even when those ideas happen to appear on an article with a person's name at the top. - MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not SPS by virtue of having either pre-publication review or the possibility of editorially imposed retraction. A source that is truly self-published wouldn't have either of those. XOR'easter (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Partial SPS It's a bit awkward since they do so much good work, but "our own editors, however, have earned the privilege of publishing articles without prior review, since they have a proven track record," is extremely concerning. What they describe as an editorial process for these articles, saying that "if any concerns about accuracy, fairness, or completeness come to our attention, we deal with them in a number of ways," is just not enough. The job of an editor is checking before, not just maybe cleaning up after "if," so I would have to say that the articles by their own editors have to be considered SPS until they revise this. Things they actually do vet before putting up, I consider as being subjected to an editorial process, however. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Generally not SPS, though additional scrutiny for articles by Gorski and Novella may be appropriate. Essentially per my previous comment. I'm also frankly not impressed with this RFC, and the manner the proposer starts these discussions in general. Said discussions are not quite up to the point of disruption, but I would nonetheless heavily suggest that they seek advice as to the drafting of their statements and formatting of their proposals and whether adequate prior discussion has taken place, from one of the other editors supporting their point of view. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• SPS A group blog posting guest postings is still a group blog, and still self-published. Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella, whose blog it is), previous claims to having a robust editorial process seem unconvincing. There is no consistently documented publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and this source is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. Void if removed (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I can easily give examples of non-SPS that don't have a documented corrections or complaints procedure, such as here, and whether they have a documented corrections or complaints procedure seems to be more a matter of whether they're an RS rather than whether they're an SPS. Are non-SPS generally reviewed by more than two editors? It seems to me that by your favored WP:USESPS definition for SPS, the guest articles aren't SPS, as author!=publisher. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am responding to suggestions that some sort of allegedly robust editorial and accountability process makes it not an SPS, which I think is a nonsense.

  My favoured definition of SPS is: if it isn't traditionally published (book, newspaper, journal) or something directly comparable structurally, it is an SPS. That is in line with USESPS since it considers virtually all websites to be self-published. It is narrow, yes, but it is also consistent across media. It is also not a reflection on reliability in other ways, as SPS vs GREL are two different concerns.

  I think the "self" in "self-published" causes much confusion, as does the consideration that "publishing" is the mere act of putting information online. A publishing company is more than a person who vets content and presses a button to place material on a website. If we consider something not self published simply because the person who writes it has to go through another person before it is published, that means celebrity social media accounts where an intern reports to a manager aren't self published, which makes a nonsense of the whole thing (ie, virtually nothing is self-published by that standard).

  I consider "science based medicine" to be a publication as a whole rather than something that can be approached article-by-article. There is no distinct, separate, traditional publishing entity, as with a newspaper, a book, or an academic journal. The owners and editors are all the same, and that they solicit other people's content to add to their own publication which they entirely control still makes it their own self-published publication, in exactly the same way as any blog with guest posts.

  I know there are difficult edge cases to the whole "what is a traditional publisher" model, but I don't think a group blog like SBM is even close to that, and considering it to be one (because editors want to use it to make BLP claims about quacks) has turned into a slippery slope IMO. Void if removed (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for elaborating on why you consider the SBM guest articles to be SPS, even though they're not published by the authors. Re: the rest, as others have noted, USESPS is an essay, not a policy; it should be consistent with policy rather than vice versa. I think we need an RfC to clarify what the meaning of SPS is in the WP:SPS policy, and once the RfC about grey matter from advocacy orgs is closed, I'm going to try to create one for WP:SPS, though so far I've found it tremendously difficult to figure out how to word such an RfC. WP:PUBLISHED says "Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form," so that's much broader than your use of it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources is policy, not an essay. It is clear policy that blogs like Science-Based Medicine not be used for BLPs at a bare minimum. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I said "USESPS is an essay, not a policy" (emphasis added). It seems that you're confusing WP:USESPS (which as I noted is an essay) with WP:SPS (which is a policy). People clearly have different opinions about whether SBM is wholly SPS or only partially SPS, and if the consensus of this RfC is that it is only partially SPS, then the part that isn't SPS can be used for statements about living persons despite identifying itself as a blog. Also, the BLP policy is for statements about living persons, wherever they occur, but AFAIK, RS expert blogs can be used for DUE statements about non-persons, even if that statement appears in a biographical article. BLPSELFPUB is also an exception. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm aware. We have multiple highly debatable and contested terms, at the heart of a core policy, and radically different interpretation of them. When I raised this weeks ago I asked what I was missing, and it turned out I wasn't missing anything except a massive intractable tarpit. I think none of it is obvious. Your objection here is understandable depends very much how you interpret "author", "publisher" and the work being published, and a narrow definition restricted to natural persons means any source with two people can be argued to be not self published. But to me it remains obvious that for a self published book in which my friend writes the foreword, their content is still self published even though I acted as "editor", and I don't see a difference between a self published book with multiple contributors and a group blog with multiple contributors. And the trouble is a lot of the discussions about how we classify X or Y revolve not around what they are, but about how we want to use them, which makes it ever more messy. Personally I would like to see clarity on *why* BLPSPS exists, and define the standard clearly there, because that would inform what sort of sources are acceptable in BLPs, which is really the nub of the matter. BLPSPS feels like it might once have been shorthand for "a source who's probably had the lawyers look it over before publishing it", but that's just my impression/speculation. Absent BLPSPS, the question of whether sources like grey literature or SBM are SPS or not is largely moot. Void if removed (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Void if removed makes a great point. Literally any propaganda shop could just have TWO people and then instantly always not be SPS according to this B.S. argument being pushed for why this source is allegedly "not SPS".............. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, most local and hyper local news outlets are in fact self-published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not SPS for reviewed content. Where content is clearly reviewed, definitely not SPS. Where we’re not certain, treat it with extra caution. By the way “blog” and “SPS” are not synonyms. Blog is a format that can be edited and published by reputable organisations, as with eg The Conversation or perhaps the SPLC’s Hatewatch. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I would agree with you that your two examples are not SPS, however I have seen people argue the contrary in both cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Everything in The Conversation (website) is effectively an opinion piece and as such is actually treated like a SPS per WP:NEWSOPED. I also don't believe that any of the content in SBM is "clearly reviewed." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back makes probably the most important point of this entire discussion, which is effectively "How can we determine clearly which articles by this blog are considered reviewed, and which are not?" many, at least all published by Gorski and Novella are unquestionably 100% SPS and therefore should not touch any BLP. This excellent point has been largely or entirely ignored by the minority "Not SPS" camp which really doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on other than "If this was considered SPS then articles on XYZ subjects would get worse." Sorry. That is not an argument supported by WP policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

That argument is directly supported by Wikipedia policy. To be clear, I don't think it's an argument that anyone needs to make, but policy overrides guidelines. The only policy-based concern, even granting the application of the SPS label despite the fact that it doesn't really fit, would be about biographies of living people, but an article on a topic like germ-theory denialism isn't a biography of a living person. XOR'easter (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Both of those links are to IAR, if thats the policy you're claiming trumps the relevant guidelines I would question your competence (especially as you appear to be calling WP:V a guideline). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Both of those links were deliberate. Like I said, the only part of WP:V that could be pertinent here is the prohibition against using self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, but that fails to apply in two different ways. XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

How does "fail to apply in two different ways"? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot more than that which is pertinent, that whole section for example is pertinent not just that one sentence. Many of the "not SPS" arguments also seem to be based on WP:NEWSBLOG. As for it somehow not applying you've lost me, gonna have to explain. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment, several editors seem to claim something along the lines of "since Science-Based Medicine is 'reviewed' it cannot be a SPS". This claim would benefit from some proof, ideally other secondary sources validating this claim, and not just the very same source saying that it does so. Alex Jones might claim that he is reviewed and reliable etc. That claim by itself does not make it so. Also, I am not saying that Science-Based Medicine is anything like AJ in terms of reliability etc., and to be clear, this RfC is not about reliability, it is just on whether or not the SBM source is an SPS, which I think it pretty obviously is. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  When we're looking at obviously non-self-published sources, they usually fit into one of these three models:

  1. Book publisher: External authors submit book outlines and sample chapters; if selected, the publisher contributes substantially towards editing (including developmental editing if necessary), designing, and marketing the book. The author pays for none of this and expects to get paid (at least if sales exceed a minimum threshold). If the publisher rejects the book, then the author is free to sell it to a different publisher.
  2. Newspaper: The publisher/publication hires editors and journalists. The editor assigns stories (to internal staff) or commissions them (among freelancers; alternatively, editors may accept external pitches, in the book-publisher model). The journalists write the stories; the editor and publisher/publication representatives decide whether to publish what the journalists wrote. If an employee instead of a freelancer, the journalist expects to get paid the same even if the article is canned (not published). If a freelancer, and the piece doesn't run, the freelancer is free to sell it to a different publication.
  3. Peer-reviewed journal: The (usually for-profit) publisher or (usually academic) sponsoring body creates the publication and hire editors. External authors submit whole papers; editors send the papers for external review and use that information to decide which ones to publish. The authors usually pay for publication, but this is understood to be akin to volunteer work on all sides, with the money usually coming from a third-party grant rather than the author's own funds. If the journal rejects the article, the author is free to submit it to another journal.

  I wonder if any of these models feel similar to how you imagine SBM to work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have expanded on this concept in a sandbox. I wonder whether people would find that comparison useful in, say, Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I do not think any of the above apply to SBM, but I'd like to see you perhaps write up a few methods for what clearly SPS look like, and then we could compare to the above, and determine which SBM most closely resembles. Again, if you write stuff, then you are the publisher, that is by definition "self-published", which is very often the case even if not always for Science-Based Medicine...even by their own admission! Iljhgtn (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think defining none self-published sources are the ones we give a free pass because of our social-culture background is a good way to define them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• SPS. The website describes itself as a blog. According to WP:SPS blogs are considered SPS. In addition, SBM publishes unknown proportions of articles without prior editorial review. Therefore, SBM could only be used with attribution, because it is impossible to tell which articles passed editorial review and which did not. JonJ937 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  @JonJ937, WP:SPS says "...self-published material such as...personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above)...are largely not acceptable as sources". Are you sure that this isn't a WP:NEWSBLOG? They have an Executive editor and a Managing editor, which are positions that we expect to find in news organizations. Someone in the prior discussion says they sometimes "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness", which is something that sometimes happens with WP:NEWSBLOGS, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Still only a "may", not "is", acceptable, and even then we would need to proceed with extreme caution, and almost certainly exclude BLPs from being acceptable for use by the source, see the rest of the quote you left off, "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs [referring even to "newsblogs" here] may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." Iljhgtn (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think by this point, we all know that you really, really, really don't want Science-Based Medicine to be considered an acceptable source. You don't need to keep pushing for your desired outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Normally newsblogs are run by news outlets and SBM is not an established news organization. Even if it was, per WP:NEWSBLOG we are advised to use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. So I don't think SBM should be used for factual statements, it can only be used for statements of opinions. JonJ937 (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Use with caution and statements of opinion are covered by other parts of the guidelines, separate from SPS. Whether a source is self-published or not doesn't mean it's reliable or unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Mostly SPS. It seems to be the Novella and Gorski show. That doesn’t make it unreliable for topics in which they are recognised experts - neurology for Novella and oncology for Gorski, apparently. That would make them reliable reviewers of any guest content on those topics too. But outside their domains of expertise, they are just blogging. Expertise in one domain does not imply expertise in another - and sometimes it’s quite the opposite, in that smart people who are accomplished in their niche start to think their opinions on everything else are equally robust (looking at you, Elon). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• SPS. Editorial oversight is insufficiently verifiable nor independent enough to call this something other than self-published. SmolBrane (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• SPS It seems their peer-review is only for new contributers, the staff is volunteer and they explicitly say that they like to avoid as much editing as possible. There also doesn't seem to be much of editorial indepencence from the owner (New England Skeptical Society) which is an advocacy group. Especially troubling is that the Executive Editor is also the President of NESS. NESS also has two other members of the Novella family on the board. That makes three of the five board members from the same family. This is no what oversight should look like. The group of writers is also small and probably know each other well and are of course, ideologically similar. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Partial SPS As discussed above, it isn't clear which articles by Gorski and Novella have been reviewed and we should probably lean towards treating those ones like WP:EXPERTSPS just to be safe. They do, however, have a very clear review policy on guest articles (see [82]) which states volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission (emphasis added). That's pretty obviously not self-publishing. I do want to note though that this type of discussion would really benefit from more consensus on what an SPS is. Maybe some more experienced editors should consider drafting a big RfC to revise SPS with more detail on what it means in practice (probably after ARBPIA5 is over so admins have more time to focus on it)? CambrianCrab (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

What definition of antisemitism should we require sources to have?

@Butterscotch Beluga and Makeandtoss: You've both brought this up at the Times of Israel RfC. It's also been a subject for discussion at the WP:ADL RfC. Does a source falsely calling something antisemitic have an impact on its reliability? If so, what definition should we be judging sources by? I see a few options:

1. Wikipedia editors should not determine if labels of antisemitism applied by a source impact that source's reliability.
2. Wikipedia editors determine if labels of antisemitism applied by a source meet one of many widely accepted definition of antisemitism.
3. Wikipedia editors create or adopt one definition of antisemitism and determine if sources are abiding by it.

Some possible existing definitions of antisemitism include the IHRA definition, the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, or the one created by the Nexus Project. I'm also open to suggestions.

For those unaware, I'm breaking out this discussion because this is a very common criticism of pro-Israel sources, as it's been used to argue against the ADL, the Times of Israel, the Jewish Chronicle,[83] and Tablet (magazine). [84] Specifically, these sources have said to have made false claims that pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel movements/individuals are antisemitic. Arguing about what constitutes antisemitism takes up a lot of time at RfCs, so getting consensus on 1, 2, or 3 would help reduce the contentiousness and length of future discussions on these sources. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Wafflefrites for input as well. This gets rehashed at every RfC, and I'd like to build a consensus on whether this argument is valid. More specifically, I would support option 1. I think arguing about whether a label of "antisemitism" was applied accurately by a source adds a lot of words to RfCs with very little benefit, since it's a statement of opinion rather than fact. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

This suggestion is instruction creep. We follow academic consensus (or more likely debate) in what the definition is, and go from there to argue if a reliable source is respecting nuances or if they are doing indefensible assumptions. The ADL RFC brought up definitions of antisemitism because their definition was any protest that was pro-Palestinian is antisemitic, resulting in a "140% rise" statistic in antisemitism.

This is how any reliable source gets evaluated... we look at the academic consensus/debate, and see if the source respects the nuance, or if they go to the fringes. Making a special case for anti-semitism by either 1, 2, or 3 closes a wikipedia debate when the academic debate is and will remain ongoing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman: That's a good way to phrase option 2. Editors would make their own evaluations of whether the antisemitism label was accurately applied, and this should be in reference to external definitions. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

"The ADL RFC brought up definitions of antisemitism because their definition was any protest that was pro-Palestinian is antisemitic." I don't believe your source supports this text, unless your own underlying belief is that to be 'pro-Palestine' requires one to be against the continued existence of Israel and/or support violence against random Jewish people in Israel. Your sources says, "the group says in the audit that it has employed “new methodology” since October 7th that identifies language that expresses “opposition to Zionism” or is “perceived as supporting terrorism or attacks on Jews, Israelis or Zionists” as antisemitism." The examples they provide fit this more restrictive criteria.

One thing I notice consistently happening in discussions about this conflict (broadly construed) is the deliberate misuse or conflation of words and concepts. This isn't directed at you or even specifically at Wikipedia, this is a general observation. What people *mean* when they say words like 'Palestine' or 'resistance' or 'Zionism' is left as an unspoken question in the discussion. When someone says 'Palestine', do they mean its current borders, or its 1967 borders, or its 1948 borders, or are they talking about the entire region? When someone says 'Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism', is 'Zionism' supporting whatever Ben-Gvir said last week or believing that Israel the 70 year old country shouldn't be scattered to the winds? Does 'is not' mean 'is never' or 'isn't necessarily'? It's a regular rhetorical trick for one word or statement to mean multiple things to the same person in the same discussion, depending on how they're being challenged.

The ADL RfC downgraded ADL's reliability in large part due to disagreement with the definition the ADL used for antisemitism. Under a consensus for options 1 or 2, such a result would not have occurred; the ADL's usage clearly matches the IHRA definition and arguably the Jerusalem Declaration. That downgrade relied on an unspoken on-wiki consensus that the ADL's criteria for antisemitism was incorrect, but didn't establish a consensus about what criteria would be correct. This is eating our cake and having it too.

If an RfC like this can close with consensus, it'll make future discussions about what does or doesn't constitute antisemitism simpler, and remove a frequent vector for this deliberate discommunication strategy. It would also signal to the wider world where exactly the Wikipedia community collectively stands, which may be a benefit or a drawback, but either way would likely impact how news and organizations report on antisemitism moving forward. It will highlight ongoing discrepancies in how Wikipedia's principles are applied, particularly our non-discrimination policy. It will certainly be a contentious discussion, and would likely result in at least some members of the community giving up on the site, either because they aren't HERE or because Wikipedia isn't here for them. I don't believe the 'ongoing academic debate' will shift rapidly enough to make this effort obsolete; frankly, I believe that in the end, there's not that much difference between the multiple official definitions. Rather, the existence of those multiple definitions is an excuse for the tendentious what-is-antisemitism argument, perceived differences are rhetorically inflated, and the argument frequently fails to engage honestly with the definitions themselves.

For these reasons, I support any one of these options as well as a more extensive glossary of frequently ambiguous terms and their definitions as applied to on-wiki discussion. I support option 3. If option 3 fails, then I support option 2. If 2 fails, than 1. One of these options should be chosen. Whichever one is chosen, it should be a factor in a re-discussion on the ADL's reliability. Any RfC on this topic should wait until after the ArbCom case closes. Safrolic (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the Wikipedia community should be sending signals "to the wider world" to communicate "where exactly the Wikipedia community collectively stands". The job of the Wikipedia community is to build an encyclopedia. The task should have no dependency of how it is viewed in the wider world. There are efforts to leverage media and social media to apply pressure. I imagine these might increase and diversify over time across a wide range of subjects as the rest of the web degrades perhaps by being contaminated with synthetic content. The community, in my view, should ensure that these kinds of influence operations fail. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The reason why I like option 1 is because it allows us to sidestep these disputes. Ultimately, arguing about whether labelling pro-Palestinian protestors as antisemitic is going to be a value judgement that depends on whether or not you support Israel.

With respect to the ADL, Option 1 here isn't going to automatically overturn that decision. The arguing about whether the ADL wrongly labelled Palestinian protestors as antisemitic added the vast majority of the wordcount, but didn't contribute much to the discussion. There were several editors who pointed out factual errors with the hate symbols database or gave examples of historical negationism. Those editors were ignored because everyone wanted to fight about the definition of antisemitism. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I like option 1 too! Any of these options is fine, my !vote is that we should pick one for internal consistency. I watched this RfC, but didn't participate, and I think you've shared an admirably good faith interpretation of its process and close. I would enjoy reading a refactored version of it with all the weak and irrelevant !votes/arguments stripped out entirely. Safrolic (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

1) with caveats I don't think a sources' labeling of something as antisemitic should directly effect their reliability as a whole, but it should be considered when citing them for that position. In controversial cases involving their use of the label, they should at least be attributed, with their inclusion then being decided on a case by case basis.

I do think that misuse of the label of antisemitism can be a factor in a source's unreliability, but outside of egregious cases, only when alongside other issues.

My caveat is that standards should be different depending on the type of source. A news org can afford to be both reliable & biased, but an advocacy org like the ADL should be held to a higher standard. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Mostly going to echo what Butterscotch Beluga said - WP:DUE and attribution are generally useful guidelines for controversial topics where there's no one universal definition, and I don't think our personal opinions on what is and isn't antisemitic should be dictating Wikipedia's content - there's a whole host of WP:NPOV issues brought up if they do that, not to mention our standard guidelines on following RSes.

Among the listed definitions, though, I'll say that I generally do like Nexus' work - the IHRA definition goes way too far, while Jerusalem doesn't go far enough. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• This is not the purpose of this board or even of this website. We do not impose ideological purity tests on sources, and we do not demand any source follow any particular position. The ADL RFC may have had some people arguing it is unreliable based on its positions, but those are weak arguments and they should not have weighed much in the determination of consensus. But it also had repeated examples of sources saying that the ADL has published false and misleading material in some topics, and *that* is not a weak argument for disputing its reliability. But this section should be closed as not a valid use of this board. nableezy - 06:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Nableezy: I broadly agree, which is why I provided the first option. Your arguments at the WP:ADL RfC were effectively ignored because everyone wanted to fight about antisemitism. I think the status quo is untenable and I want to start reducing the number of arguments that don't benefit the topic area.

  I agree that ideological purity tests are weak arguments and they should not have weighed much in the determination of consensus. However, these weak arguments cause an inordinate amount of wordcount on something that doesn't end in a consensus, so explicitly clarifying that these arguments shouldn't be made would benefit the encyclopedia.

  I added in the other two options, because if editors do think purity testing is OK, I'd rather we at least clarify what we're purity testing against. If someone is going to say a source is unreliable because it called something antisemitic, editors should provide a definition of antisemitism and explain how the thing in question didn't meet that definition. This would still be an improvement over the free-for-all we have now. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think the beginning of that statement is true, and I think a bunch of people brought sources questioning the ADLs reliability, not just personal opinions. And on the other end of the spectrum the Counterpunch RFC had similar attempts at purity testing. But we see that in a number of topics, not toeing a certain line on the Syrian war has been used to argue against reliability, having positions that editors disagree with on trans rights same thing. But those arguments should be ignored on all sides, sources not espousing the views that even large majorities of editors hold should not matter here one bit. nableezy - 06:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  But those arguments should be ignored on all sides, sources not espousing the views that even large majorities of editors hold should not matter here one bit. The problem with the current situation is that it does matter, because RfC closers do not have a clear mandate to ignore those arguments. This discussion is intended to give that mandate and help editors understand what is expected when they !vote on sources. I believe more meta-discussions on what is "in-bounds" would help contentious topic areas.

  If I was !voting on WP:COUNTERPUNCH today, I wouldn't call it a neo-nazi rag because I am now much more familiar with the expectations for judging sources. That interaction would've gone better if you were able to link something saying that calling for the destruction of Israel/other examples of bias is not unreliability. Instead, in order to refute that, you and I wasted time arguing about whether or not WP:COUNTERPUNCH is actually antisemitic, because otherwise you'd have conceded the point. That did not have any measurable impact on the success of the RfC despite being an incredibly controversial timesuck, and it'd be beneficial if other editors could avoid that scenario in the future. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think they already do have a clear mandate, and I would hope in the future they make clear what arguments they ignore so that others can see that wasting that kind of time is counterproductive. nableezy - 13:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  I count three people here that very clearly disagree. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  Three people are wrong on the internet. nableezy - 22:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just don't argue about it then. Say, "I disagree but this is irrelevant to this discussion." And then stop. Simonm223 (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  I would agree with this suggestion, far to often discussions in this area are dragged of topic. This creates bloat that makes the job of anyone closing the discussion harder. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• We are not going to pick and choose any definition, and then evaluate sources based on that. WP is not a watchdog. This discussion should take place on a case by case basis. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  Is this support for option 1, or is it 'maybe option 1, maybe not, depending who we're talking about'? Safrolic (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is an oppose to the question itself. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• This is not a question for this board. Some source may promote or argue for this or that definition of antisemitism or for anything else, that's up to them. What's up to us is deciding whether or not that constitutes a reliability issue in some context.Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think external definitions of “-ism” labels should be considered a reliability issue at all… it’s a DUE weight issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not a question for this board. It's a WP:DUE issue to be discussed on a case by case basis, and usually not here.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's also an AGF and BLP problem - it poisons the well of conversation on Wikipedia to accuse people of holding reasonable opinions such as "war crimes should be prosecuted regardless of the religion of the perpetrators," or, "ethnostates are bad and nobody should form one," as antisemitic. Which is functionally what "criticism of Israel is de-facto antisemitic" does. Furthermore, from a BLP perspective, a newspaper slinging opinion is inappropriate to label a living person an antisemite. When dealing with living people, or our project colleagues, we should be especially judicious. There have been good, long, times when a lot of what I've done on Wikipedia is patrol for WP:NONAZI disruptive editing and yet I don't go around calling (now permanently blocked for disruptive editing supporting pro-Nazi positions) editors Nazis. We should all try to show that minimal level of respect. This makes overly-expansive definitions of antisemitism and other bigotries functionally useless with Wikipedia. For the project to function we need to show a high degree of care. Frankly the divisions over this one conflict area consume far too much bandwidth across Wikipedia and bad-faith statements that lump a large number of editors in with racists is absolutely a part of the problem.

  So basically this is the wrong forum but where you probably want to take it is the open arbitration case about this mess.Simonm223 (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  So, you agree with Option 1, that we shouldn't argue for the banning of the source based on it having the wrong definition of antisemitism? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  I said option 2 on the basis that I am against the use of GREL as a standard. All reliability is conditional. Please do not try to reinterpret my very clearly expressed statement in such a way. If you feel any better I would say the same thing about Al Jazeera. Simonm223 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  Also I think I just said that overly-expansive definitions of antisemitism destroy the conditions required for AGF and are problematic for BLPs. Let's close this and if you must insist on continuing the discussion do so at the arbitration case. This conversation is fundamentally inappropriate for this venue. Simonm223 (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  If the discussion is fundamentally inappropriate for this venue, then people shouldn't be bringing it up at RfCs, correct? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Simonm223: I'm asking if you support that Wikipedia editors should not determine if labels of antisemitism applied by a source impact that source's reliability at RSN, not whether or not you believe the Times of Israel is generally reliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  And I said really clearly that framing the question in this way is inappropriate and that questions about what weight Wikipedia should give to the opinions of Israeli newspapers and pro-Israel lobby groups project wide should be reserved for the open arbitration case. Simonm223 (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  I will not be responding further in this thread. Do not tag me again in it. Simonm223 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Count me in with those that think this is not a good question. I feel that the real question behind it is "when should wp call someone/something antisemitic because a source does?" This is an easier question for me because my answer is "never". Charges of antisemitism are always opinions, even when they are opinions that every reasonable person would agree with. So, like all opinions, they should be attributed. Wikipedia does not have opinions of its own. Once you decide that such accusations should be attributed, the questions here become meaningless. Zero^talk 11:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• yep not a good question, as others have said this looks more like an undue question. All we can say is what a source says, not if it is correct. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• I agree with the two previous comments. There are multiple definitions of antisemitism, naturally different sources adopt different ones, whether explicitly or implicitly. This should have no impact on the reliability, this is not based on the RS policy. Alaexis_¿question? 13:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• "so getting consensus on 1, 2, or 3 would help reduce the contentiousness and length of future discussions on these sources" no it wouldn't, might actually make them longer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• I don't think this is the job of Wikipedians. It is the job of sources. The reputation of a source from other reliable sources should be the best metric for determining if it's reliable. I think with anything in this contentious topic, statements should be attributed to a specific source. And if there's other sources disagreeing with that understanding, those need to be mentioned as well. If a publication has particular slant that's considered anti-Semitic, that slant should be noted from other reliable sources, with attribution to those sources, and explanation included as to why they think that's anti-Semitic.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• This isn't how we operate; a source's reliability is determined by their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. But there are related questions we can consider: First, is a particular definition of antisemitism WP:FRINGE? Using a fringe definition is probably going to impact a source's reliability, although ultimately we'd look at coverage to determine that. That said, there's probably some fringe definitions out there but the ones that are debated in the mainstream media probably aren't. The other question is where and how particular definitions of antisemitism (and aspects of those definitions) are contested opinions vs. being established fact. I don't agree with the people above who say that it is always opinion - I think most people would agree that it is uncontested fact among the highest-quality sources that eg. the ideologies of Nazism or the KKK are antisemitic; they can be described as such in the article voice without attribution. But many major sources are using definitions that are obviously contested, and if a source is obviously using a controversial definition of antisemitism then that should be taken into account and made clear when using it in that context. --Aquillion (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• The common definitions of antisemitism in dictionaries do not imply that anti-Zionism is included. I believe that should be the base standard in Wikipedia. I really do not think it reasonable to apply it to being against Israel's action in Gaza like he ADL have nor as is implied in the IHRA examples. And I find it really really annoying that they many of the Zionists have decided to identify being Jewish with the mass killing of Palestinians and that they see nothing wrong with this. I would say that any publication that did this identification would have to be checked in any use of the term whether they mean anti-Israel and if they do then the use would need to be qualified in some way like 'meaning here they are anti Israel's actions'. So not something to deprectae the publication but something that one needs to be careful about. NadVolum (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  @NadVolum: I think it's unnecessary to throw insults at "Zionists", so it'd be appreciated if you struck: And I find it really really annoying that they many of the Zionists have decided to identify being Jewish with the mass killing of Palestinians and that they see nothing wrong with this. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Many of the Zionists. That is exactly what they do when they say opposing Israel's actions is a form of antisemitism. NadVolum (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  To be clearer where I stand, this is an Engliah encyclopaedia not a Jewish one. We should normally use common English meanings. This is important as saying antisemitic has real world implications. If some jargon meaning is meant that should be made clear. For instance we do not call all the Palestinians killed by bombing and bullets martyrs even thought that is what they say. The normal English meaning is just inappropriate. A use of martyr for that should indicate it is a jargon meaning and point to the appropriate aricle. The implication for reliability is that checking is required if the meaning can be mistaken easily. That may not be a straight reliability issue but it definitely is something that shouldn't be just hidden away as an Easter egg from readers. NadVolum (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Chess can you explain what option 2 means? You mean if a source defines antisemitism in a similar way to any one of the main defs (IHRA, JDA, Nexus) then it’s broadly reliable for a claim about antisemitism, everything else being equal? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Bobfrombrockley: I poorly defined it at the start of this discussion. It's meant to be a criteria for editors arguing against a source's reliability. Oftentimes, editors argue a source is unreliable in all contexts, or Israel-Palestine as a whole, based solely on its definition of antisemitism.

  Based on feedback from others, I'd rephrase it to say editors arguing that a source misapplied the label of "antisemitism" should show how it goes against the definitions used by reliable sources. That would be more broad than what you're saying. The intention isn't to say if a source meets this definition, it's reliable, it's that if you don't like a source, provide the definition of antisemitism so others can engage with your logic. I'm not in favour of this option, but I want it to accurately reflect the views of other editors.

  The third option, on the other hand, would enshrine some specific definitions of antisemitism we would use and analyze. I don't see anyone in favour of that. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. I am strongly opposed to option 3, especially as most actual scholars of antisemitism do not use any of the high profile definitions. I have some sympathy with both option 1 and (a little less) option 2.

  In recent discussions, I've seen editors saying a source is reliable for defining antisemitism because it follows the IHRA definition, editors saying a source is unreliable because it follows that definition, and iirc maybe also editors saying a source is unreliable because it doesn't follow that definition. My view is that signing up to the IHRA def should have no bearing on reliability: it's not the most robust definition in scholarly terms, but on the other hand it is quite widely accepted among RSs and is very far from FRINGE.

  If editors are more or less universally opposed to option 3, and nobody is biting option 2, then I think logically making an explicit commitment to option 1 might not be a bad idea. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. Wikipedians should not use personal opinions on the definition of antisemitism to discount or impugn the reliability of sources. Whether or not sources align with one or another definition of antisemitism should not be an acceptable argument or factor in determining the reliability of sources. This is POV creep. Reliability of sources should be according to other reliable sources, analysis of fact checks, the reputation in the academic and reputable facts-based community, not simply how the opinions of editors square with their interpretation of the source. Andre🚐 22:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 - and this should be generalised to all subjective political descriptions. I.e. if source X calls subject A racist, and source Y says subject A not racist, there can be no implication from this alone that either source X or source Y are unreliable. This doesn't preclude the conclusion that source X or Y are airing a fringe view in the particular case.

Contested political descriptions like "socialist", "conservative", "left/right" (or "far-left/right") should similarly not impact assessments of reliability. Even if a source regularly makes WP:FRINGE subjective political assessments but is reliable for objective factual claims, this should at most merit a note at RSP but no downgrading of reliability. The alternative is a progressively narrowing ideological overton window of reliable sources. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 2 and 3 go against policy. As long as the definition isn't way outside. If the definition is weird, one might want to clarify that in the article. I think this dispute could also be avoided by describing the specific behaviour or belief. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like feedback on what I feel is a reliable source but others have questioned.

I was recently looking to use AussieAirpower as a source in an aircraft article. I was surprised to see two people say it wasn't a reliable source. Here is why I believe it is.

The primary author writes for Janes, which is very highly regarded, worked as a research fellow at the Australian Defence Studies Centre, consulted for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and many others. So his opinion isn't just held in high regard, governments pay for it. He is he a current research fellow for the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics as well as the editor for AussieAirpower.

Peter Goon co authors a lot of the work, a qualified aircraft engineer and RAAF officer, graduate of the US navy test pilot school with extensive military test flying and who has developed and certified many aircraft technologies.

To me this seems like an ideal source on matters relating to things like radars and aircraft? However others seem to elevate the work of regular reporters above this and deem the think tank unreliable?

An example article is linked here. https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Zhuk-AE-Analysis.html Liger404 (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

What was the article you tried to use? Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue seems to stem from discussions at Talk:Sukhoi Su-57 about this article. The problem appears to stem from the fact it's outdated, as it's from 2010. At least that appears to be Steve7c8 and MarkusDorazio objection. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

They seemed to criticise the think tank in general. And yes I accept the article is 14 years old, it's also the most recent article myself or anyone else seems to be aware of. (That gets into the technical characteristics of the jet.). So is it not reasonable to say this is old, but also the current information? A lot of references, like say for Fly by wire, are from 1960 or similar, but they are considered acceptable as they are not replaced by more modern work. Liger404 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe this one, or an almost identical one. https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2012-03.html Liger404 (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

AusAirPower’s stuff is generally quite solid analysis, and in my view is the same as any other think tank that advocates policy proposals.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Bild

What is the reliability of the German tabloid Bild, including its website Bild.de?

1. Generally reliable
2. Additional considerations apply
3. Generally unreliable
4. Deprecated

Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Responses (Bild)

• Option 3/4 Bild is a sensational tabloid, that according to Foreign Policy magazine, archived link, routinely violates basic journalistic ethics and is regularly sanctioned for it by German Press Council, being sanctioned by them 26 times in 2021 alone. As evidenced by this piece in Deutsche Welle [85] their process of verification and fact checking is below the standard expected for a reliable source. For those looking for a more comprehensive account of the newspaper and its ethics, I've found this freely accessible short book (less than 100 pages, including references) in German from 2023 on the topic [86] (which can translated using google translate's PDF translate feature) Some quotes from the book (in translation) Driven by a special editorial culture ("We are tabloids after all") and driven by editorial decisions in which sales interests take precedence over media ethics, articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers. ... The way celebrities are treated [by Bild], who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary... EDIT: another quote BILD's journalism does not focus on the task of providing information, but rather on examining a suitable fact for its emotionality and framing it with commentary.} Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  As an addendum: here are some other examples, including a fake story about migrants committing sexual assault in 2017 [87], as well as taking scientists quotes out of context to further an agenda regarding COVID during the pandemic [88] Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 - per Hemiauchenia. I'll add an argument that's weaker but nevertheless entertaining and somewhat indicative, which is that Bild's infamy is so well-established that an acclaimed book presenting a lightly-fictionalized denunciation of its practices is a common inclusion of university German language, German literature and media studies courses. There hasn't been any argument made, however, that our current usage of Bild is so pervasive a problem that deprecation is necessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3/4. I don't think we should cite Bild anywhere on Wikipedia. It's a sensationalist tabloid like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• 3 at least, and I wouldn't say no to 4. This is one of the weakest sources in the region, though I could see it being cited for special purposes, like examples of "headlinese" that aren't in English, etc. But at this point I don't think it's even usable for WP:ABOUTSELF material; if they claimed something as simple as X number of employees, I would strongly suspect it of being an exaggeration.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• 3 I honestly have no idea how one could even come to approach the idea that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but if previous discussions haven't been enough, I suppose it's worth piling on. Sources should not be considered reliable until they prove themselves to be. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• 3/4 Bild is a tabloid and well known for its lack of fact checking and heavy bias. The closest english speaking equivalent would be things like the Daily Mail. In my opinion broadly unusable. Magisch ^{talk to me} 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• bad 2 for miscellaneous or political content, unusable for the private lives of BLP and particularly recently deceased people it's rather rare that they publish straightforward misinformation, particularly when considering the volume of content published. Having said that, they have a nasty habit of violating both journalistic and actual ethics (and allegedly breaking the law), so using them is probably broadly unwise. There are some rare cases where they can be useful, but as far as usable sources go, they are on the very lowest end IMO, being a tabloid in an area with an otherwise strong media environment. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a significant issue to justify depreciation. Note: this applies to Bild only, other sources owned by that publisher are usually a lot more reliable, even if I personally consider much of what they believe to be rather questionable FortunateSons (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2, provisionally, since no examples of publishing falsehoods and misinformation have been provided so far in this thread and I couldn't find them in the article. See my comments in the discussion section. Alaexis_¿question? 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, I don't see the need for deprecation. Bild is tabloid journalism, and falls far short of the high quality sources that BLP calls for. It shouldn't be anywhere near anything contentious to do with a living, or recently deceased, person. When it comes to it reliability in other areas how other reliable sources view Bild is important, I suggest reading the work by Prof Lilienthal posted by Hemiauchenia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 Tabloid journalism is generally incompatible with the Wikipedia project. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, there even exist a German blog whose aim is mainly to publicize errors of Bild – Bildblog. But see my comment in the discussion section below. --Cyfal (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 per ActivelyDisinterested. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 so no change. Most of our current usage of it seem to be interviews which per WP:ABOUTSELF would be fine. I see no evidence they’re fabricating interviews. Probably usable for mundane things like sports (they seem to cover that a lot). For any contentious anything should not be cited - but they seem to get a lot of interviews with notable people, so we can keep using that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3/4 per Hemiauchenia... tabloids in general post sensational info that is poorly fact-checked and rife with errors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Bild)

Bild is currently used over 1,800 times on the English Wikipedia per bild.de  . It is already currently listed on RSP as "generally unreliable". This RfC was prompted by a discussion at WT:RSP, where a user questioned the lack of participation in previous discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I asked the initial question at WT:RSP since I don't like when we classify sources based on vibes. So I'll play the role of the devil's advocate. I have very little knowledge of the German media landscape and I'm open to arguments in both directions. The sources provided by u:Hemiauchenia make two claims:

• articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers." ... "The way celebrities are treated [by Bild], who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary" - this should have no bearing on reliability, unless they actually published falsehoods about said celebrities
• In 2018 Bild fell for a hoax. Someone leaked emails supposedly between a major political party in Germany and a made-up Russian online figure. Bild published an article based on it. This is definitely a failure of their editorial process but they definitely did not do it on purpose and when this became known clarified that the whole thing was a hoax. I don't think that one such issue that happened 6 years ago should automatically lead to GUNREL status. Many other RS fell for hoaxes [89]. Alaexis_¿question? 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated): From the perspective of critical readers, BILD is constantly chipping away at its own credibility.

If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. Alaexis_¿question? 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks!

These are the key points from the foreword

1. articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers
2. BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples
3. [CEO of Axel Springer] is said to have felt personally affected [by rent freeze]. Because he is co-owner of such a property in Berlin. He then prompted BILD editor-in-chief Reichelt to write extremely critical reports about Adidas and the rent freeze
4. A woman who says she suffered under former editor-in-chief Reichelt is suing the German media group in the USA because she felt let down by her former employer
5. A particularly drastic case occurred in early 2017, when the Frankfurt edition reported on sexual assaults by men with a migrant background on visitors to a prominent nightlife district - completely fabricated by people the editorial team trusted without checking. The embarrassment was great, and the retraction in the paper itself was inevitable.

I think I understand the issues with it better now. Would you say that this is a reasonably complete summary or is there something else I missed?

In my view #5 is most relevant for the assessment of reliability. They certainly didn't a good job as journalists but it doesn't seem like they fabricated stuff and in the end they published a retraction which is what we expect from sources. #2 and #3 show that it's clearly a very WP:BIASED source. I'm still not sure it satisfies the WP:GUNREL criteria. Alaexis_¿question? 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually the example you gave after your !vote about Bild's campaign against Christian Drosten is pretty convincing. Alaexis_¿question? 23:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what is meant by classif[ing] sources based on vibes, but if it means assessing the reputation of a source based on other reliable sources, that's kinda what we're required to do by policy. WP:SOURCE says reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as does WP:RS multiple times. No reputation, no evidence of reliability. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Because of Bild's outstanding importance and high circulation, politicians, celebrities and sportspeople often give Bild interviews. I consider these texts as generally reliable, in contrast to Bild's other articles. I've checked some of the bild.de  , most of them belong to the first category. --Cyfal (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Using Who's Who in American Politics with the caveats of ABOUTSELF?

From 1967 to 1995, 15 editions of Who's Who in American Politics were published by R. R. Bowker, while from 1997 to 2014, 11 editions were published by Marquis Who's Who. See [90] and [91] for respective examples, which seem fairly similar to each other, although the entries are formatted somewhat differently from standard Marquis entries. They primarily contain sketches of state legislators, although congresspeople, governors and other state officials, major city mayors, some party officials, etc. also get entries. I know previous discussions of Marquis have determined it to be 'generally unreliable' largely due to its similarity to self-published sources, and I agree it is not relevant to establishing notability. I am curious about its usage for biographical details. Most entries with biographical details are gathered from the subjects, and I believe most, perhaps nearly all other biographical details are gathered from state secretaries of state. While there is often plenty of media coverage of local politicians, the vast majority of their biographical details on WP come from self-written entries published by third parties, e.g. state blue books or newspaper compilations, or even from campaign websites. To me, it seems entries in WWiAP can be used with a similar level of compliance with WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:BLPSPS, etc., but I am curious to get others' input. Star Garnet (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Opinions vary, but I would use them for WP:ABOUTSELF within the limitations that ABOUTSELF defines. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

As I pointed out during a previous discussion on Who's Who books, the evidence we have seen so far (such as the Kiser and Schacter study) actually indicates that these kind of biographical dictionaries can actually be very reliable and accurate, and that Marquis Who's Who, in particular, is very reliable and accurate. WP:ABOUTSELF is not applicable, because these books are not self published. Nor are they similar to self published books. Autobiography is not self publishing. Self publishing is when the author of a book pays the cost of publishing the book (ie he pays the cost of printing; he either prints the book himself or he pays someone to print it for him). The reason self published books are objectionable is because self publishing implies that no conventional publisher will pay to print the book because they think the book is unmerchantable because no one would want to buy the book. If no one wants to buy a book, that implies the book might be trash. But the Marquis publications seem to have sold very well, so that line of reasoning does not apply. James500 (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Who's Who may not be self-published, but as you said it is autobiographical. Autobiography is literally the author about themselves, and so ABOUTSELF (which isn't just about self-published sources) applies. Ultimately it's not about how something was published, in anything that is the subject about themselves ABOUTSELF applies. Whether that is a press release, a social media post, an autobiography, or a blog post it's all the same. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Globo

There is a Brazilian media company called Grupo Globo, which operates TV Globo, GloboNews, G1, O Globo and other news outlets. I find it reliable as a source for Brazil-related information, although it was a lot better as it was much more of a partisan source years prior.

Was it generally unreliable prior to the death of its founder, Irineu Marinho, and is it generally reliable nowadays? 189.59.95.60 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a very broad question and I've not had much luck finding any third party discussion of the organisation. WP:NEWSORG covers general advice about established news organisations. I've left a notice at WT:WikiProject Brazil asking for any additional input. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Watchtime

Is www.watchtime.net reliable for watches? I’m considering writing an article about a watch, and this source might be closer to a make or break regarding notability. FortunateSons (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

For a moment I thought it was a dodgy knock off of watchtime.com, the website of an established watch magazine, but no it appears to be the German arm of the same company. It should be reliable for details about watches. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Quartz and AI errors in 2024 articles

According to reporting from Semafor [92], apparently thousands of Quartz's 2024 articles on securities and exchange filings were done with AI and it had to be turned off earlier this month because of making basic factual mistakes such as confusing one company's data for another's. Not sure if we should note this on RSP (e.g. at least a ban on using securities filing articles from Quartz in 2024). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Just by posting here it's added to the archives for anyone searching for it in the future. Semafor doesn't say that the articles on securities and exchange filings are the issue, but that an AI scraper that creates a feed of Quartz's articles has been turned off. However personally the fact they use AI for those articles is enough that they should at least be view critically.

It's been discussed a couple of times before, archive 316 and archive 301. As well as being mentioned in discussion about other sources[93]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Killing of Brian Thompson

On the article Killing of Brian Thompson, one editor wants to include a poll that's from a generally unknown and unreliable source, but the same polling data was published by the Miami Herald, a generally reliable news source. What does policy say about this? Is Miami Herald piece citeable? This discussion is taking place on the talk page, last section as of this writing. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

If it's being discussed on the talk page, it should stay on the talk page. The argument doesn't appear to be based on whether Miami Herald is generally reliable, but instead whether the content is due for inclusion. Miami Herald is otherwise a standard WP:NEWSORG, and it doesn't seem like anyone is claiming otherwise, so don't see the purpose of this discussion here. CNC (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Some editors are claiming the Miami Herald simply "regurgitated" the original source, with no fact-checking or editorial scrutiny, which is not what we normally assume if a news source has a reputation for that sort of thing. The implication is very much that this specific MH piece is unreliable. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd actually always assume this could be case, based on the generally in generally reliable. Overall, if it's only documented by one RS rather than multiple, it's not necessarily that reliable nor due for inclusion for that reason. This within the context of a very public topic, as opposed to niche topics that generally receive less coverage, which is obviously not the case here. CNC (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, sounds reasonable. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Just as a final point here, given I suggested an RfC prematurely elsewhere, it'd probably be best to wait a few days to see if other reliable sources provide coverage for the content in question (thus providing more scrutiny). If there were multiple sources for this, I doubt there would still be the strong opposition to the inclusion of the content. CNC (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

It's actually really common for papers to run polls without much oversight at all as to issues like survey quality. Largely because newspapers are not academic journals and don't generally have a statistician participate in editorial review. This is one reason we should be more cautious, in general, with newspapers reporting statistics. Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. CNC has persuaded me to wait so, we'll see what other sources say in a week or two. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

For reference, the two polls being discussed: Scott Rasmussen/Napolitan News Service/RMG Research Inc poll conducted on December 12, 2024 and The Center for Strategic Politics poll conducted on December 11, 2014. Some1 (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Slate (magazine) and is it reliable?

It was being used on a former very recently Featured Article Feather by singer Sabrina Carpenter, seems like if that article passed FA criteria then it is probably reliable? Slate Magazine is also hugely popular but yet I couldn't find anything about it here so please let me know. This0k (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC) — This0k (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Thatsoddd (talk · contribs).

It doesn't look like Slate has ever been a primary focus of discussion on RSN (nor been added to the perennial list because of that). But it appears the reason for that in past discussions that mention it is because it is just commonly considered reliable, at least within the topic confines of US politics and culture, at a minimum. For an article about a song, it seems like a perfectly fine source to use. Not contentious at all. Silverseren^C 01:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Wait hold on because then why isn't there a discussion if it will be let's say short and sweet, it may as well be discussed. This0k (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussions happen when someone questions a source's reliability. The reliability of Slate isn't contentious. There isn't a point to having a discussion unless there's a dispute. Mackensen (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

In the interests of a full and detailed discussion, and because it often publishes edgy opinions, I hereby question its reliability.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@RadioactiveBoulevardier A "full and detailed discussion" requires, you know, details. Examples of stories (as opposed to opinion pieces) that would lead an observer to doubt its reliability. Serious factual mistakes that went uncorrected, for example. Reporting on Slate's unreliability. Given that you're now challenging its reliability the onus is on you to provide those. If the joke accidentally went too far you can withdraw your comment, I'll withdraw this response, and we can go about our business :). Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

If your going to question it's reliability you need to make a case or show some example of it's use that is contested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on why publishing edgy opinions would lead a reasonable editor to question its reliability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I've generally found Slate's longer form pieces to be reliable but their "Life" section has the same issues as other lifestyle sections but people seem to be able to use common sense there (nobody is using a gift guide as a source that "Your family will love this product"). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an editor who regularly edits articles about popular music, and I sometimes lurk this noticeboard, but this is the first time I've felt compelled to write something on it. I use Slate and their music critics Chris Molanphy and Carl Wilson as sources from time to time on the topic of popular music. Molanphy, who is the author of the article being cited, has written for other reliable sources on the topic of popular music, and is a well-regarded writer and critic in the field. As far as I can see, there have not been any discussions about Slate's writing about popular music being inaccurate or untruthful. The article is used four times in the "Feather" article: To describe the song as within the neo-disco genre, to compare the video to the film Promising Young Woman, and that Carpenter had not made the Top 40 of the Billboard Hot 100 until the release of "Feather". That all seems like perfectly reasonable uses for the Slate reference in article about a pop song to me, and is similar to how other references from Billboard, American Songwriter, and Rolling Stone are being used in that article. I don't think describing a pop song as being part of a particular genre, or explaining a fact about chart placement, could be considered "edgy opinions" whatsoever. Doc Strange (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say that, with respect to most of their coverage, Slate is of pretty good quality. With respect to their politics/culture stuff, I tend to use them with a bit of caution; the factual claims they make are true, and they are not so biased as to discredit them, but it is pretty obvious that they like Democrats and do not like Republicans. They also have stuff like this, which is more or less completely a joke.

One might expect "news outlets make jokes sometimes" to be common sense, but at RSN nothing can be taken for granted, and I wouldn't be surprised if five years from now there's some argument on a talk page where two people argue about whether every sentence uttered in a Slate article is literally and factually true, and attempt to bolster their arguments with links to this very discussion.

So let it be said that a phrase like "Kyrsten Sinema made a rare, arduous trek to work" should not be interpreted literally as "a Senator's commute is arduous" or as "Slate said that a Senator's commute is arduous". jp×g🗯️ 15:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Note that this topic was started by a sock puppet. Graywalls (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Reconsider ABC News

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.

---

A news network that bends over so quick to intimidation from a fascist leader shouldn't be a RS. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The settlement concerns a comment ABC News host George Stephanopoulos made on an episode of This Week, which is ABC News's Sunday morning talk show. News channel talk shows tend to be opinionated and are usually considered less reliable than the parent news organization's reporting; see MSNBC (RSP entry) and Fox News talk shows (RSP entry) for examples. Whether to settle a lawsuit is a business decision based on the costs of defending the company and the likelihood of winning, and I do not see ABC News settling this lawsuit about a talk show comment as a negative indicator of the reliability of ABC News's non–talk show reporting. ABC News is still generally reliable, per the news organizations guideline. — Newslinger talk 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

For my own sanity, I choose to believe that this is not a serious request. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Is the Khan Academy a reliable source for Petra?

Used 3 times in the article. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I used Khan Academy in school and I would consider it a reliable source but that's just based on my own experience. This0k (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC) — This0k (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Thatsoddd (talk · contribs).

Khan Academy is a study guide website similar to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes. Study guide websites were brought to RSN previously at least twice [94] [95], though without many comments.

In my opinion, study guide websites are basically less reputable school textbooks. As such, they are not outright non-RS, but are lower-preference and should not be used where good sourcing is necessary, such as for controversial material. They are tertiary sources, so better sources with deeper coverage will always exist and should be preferred. NicolausPrime (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me that your question isn't about the Khan Academy in general, but about whether that specific Khan Academy article (used three times in WP's article on Petra) is reliable. That Khan Academy article was written by Dr. Elizabeth Macaulay-Lewis, and I looked up her background: https://www.gc.cuny.edu/people/elizabeth-macaulay (more info in her CV). I'd say that she's a reliable author for this content. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah… not UNreliable… but better (MORE reliable) sources exist that will support the same material, and those should be found and used instead. Replace, rather than remove. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The Khan Academy article refers people to a UNESCO page and a Metropolitan Museum page for further info. The UNESCO page has a bunch of info, though I'm not going to dig in to see if it has info about the specific WP text sourced to the Khan Academy essay. The Met page only has a bit of info but provides further reading via an exhibition catalog that can be viewed online, a bunch of Met art essays, and two books:

Markoe, Glenn, ed. Petra Rediscovered: Lost City of the Nabataeans. New York: Abrams, 2003.

Taylor, Jane. Petra and the Lost Kingdom of the Nabataeans. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002.

Any of those sources would be better, assuming that they confirm the WP text. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Moviehole.net (defunct)

The site just went defunct (see description on YouTube), but I was wondering if it's still reliable for all-things entertainment? For what it's worth, it had been used by relatively high-quality sources as a secondary source before, for example:

• Total Film (now hosted by GamesRadar+): [96], [97], [98], [99], [100]
• IGN: [101], [102], [103], [104], [105]
• Film Threat: [106], [107]
• /Film: [108].
• Rotten Tomatoes: [109]

Had to ask because I intend to use this (an article written by Alicia Malone) as a source for the overall critical reception to Death Race 2, an article I'm improving. Thanks, Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it can be used but it's important to note, although it is referring to the second film either way I do not think this should be used for overall critical reception as it is one article. This0k (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think one article that summarizes a critical reception will suffice, provided it's reliable. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Moviehole.net appears to have some limited use by others in academic sources, and Malone has published multiple works about cinema, so it should be reliable for your purpose. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Dictionary.com

I want to use the source in the Skull and crossbones article under a new section called "Use in social media". This is the only source I can find that could be reliable, the others I know for a fact are unreliable. ミラへぜ (talk) (ping me!) 00:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a full dictionary produced by an editorial team, I don't see a reason to presume unreliability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Although that's true, if the OP means this the skull and crossbones entry on the emoji dictionary[110] then it's reliability is not so clear. Note the comment at the end of the entry: "This is not meant to be a formal definition of ☠️ Skull and Crossbones emoji like most terms we define on Dictionary.com,..." I wouldn't use the emoji dictionary as a source, as it doesn't appear to be of the same standard as the rest of dictionary.com. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't even realize that part of the dictionary existed. I think the history of it as a UNICODE character would be reliable, but yes, I agree that the editorial note means that this shouldn't be used as a formal source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This Day on Bella Disu

Posted on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and it was suggested to bring this here:

I am trying to cut promotional content from Bella Disu. This Day seems like a "reliable source". However, looking at the content they've published, I'm concerned that this newspaper may have a conflict of interest when it comes to her/her billionaire family.

• A Daughter in a Million: The Amazing Exploits of Belinda Disu in Busines
• Super Woman…When Bella Adenuga Stormed Kigali In A Grand Style
• France Honours Bella Disu with Prestigious National Honour
• Abumet Nigeria Appoints Belinda Ajoke Disu Chairman
• Mike Adenuga Centre: Another Promise Kept!

In fact, many of the sources used in the article seem like the kind of thing a billionaire in a country like Nigeria probably paid someone to write but I am not sure how to handle this. 🄻🄰 14:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the reliability of the outlet, I will leave that to more experienced editors. It might be worth noting that the links you provided have no byline, yet the news and political articles do have a byline. That is sometimes a clue as to whether it is promotional/paid articles. Plus, and please forgive me for the bluntness, but most of that writing is way over the top in terms of promotional.

See what others suggest. Knitsey (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oddly the have a tag for advertorials[111], but if you go to the first article currently in that list[112] the tag is absent from the article itself. There's been several Nigerian sources that have been previously discussed around the same topic. Much like the media market in India, see WP:NEWSORGINDIA, paid undisclosed advertorials are common in Nigeria. As with India this is done by otherwise generally reliable sources.

My suggestion would be to be critical of any reporting, regardless of origin, that is so overly promotional of the subject of it's reporting (unless the subject is regularly described in such a manner by multiple sources).

None of this is reliable for the over the top descriptions and achievements, but it could contain bits of usable information. You can go through the an article ignoring all the things you obviously can't use ("Men should bow and women should genuflect" or "she exudes the savvy of the ancients, the type of spunk that spurred medieval Amazons"), and see if there is anything you can use ("Educated at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, with a degree in political science and international relations"). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

New infopage, WP:SPSWHEN

I wrote this following an umpteenth debate about whether or not preprints are reliable sources because they're written by experts.

Feedback and tweaks welcome. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a very narrow application and when applied any broader cancels out the entire point of EXPERTSPS existing. At that point, why not just remove it? I agree that there are problems with it but the way this is written feels unclear to me (and tilted towards some scientific disciplines instead of others, to which it probably applies better). Also, the alternative source being the university website - that would also be an SPS. So why doesn't the higher bar apply to it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

A staff listing would not be an SPS. And universities control what they host. If Dr Foobar didn't work at the University of Barfoo, then they wouldn't have a page hosted by University of Barfoo. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

By the WP:USESPS definition of SPS it would be an SPS, as the publisher and creator are the same (as part of the same organization). Outside of that the contents of most websites are considered self published sources, and a university is not much different in that way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The definition used by USESPS is contentious at best, and far broader than the description in policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem is, USESPS ultimately is an essay.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but then what definition are we using? I doubt a website posting undergoes substantial peer review. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

"Yes, but then what definition are we using?" WP:SPS is the current consensus. And as to the question, a website posting may or may not undergo substantial editorial review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the following text was added to BLPSPS: "It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example," so using a university website to confirm that someone works for the university is OK. As for the definition of SPS, to the extent that there is one, it's in footnote 1 on WP:V. Once the RfC closes re: whether advocacy org grey literature is/isn't always an SPS, I plan to open an RfC about the definition of "self-published" itself (though I'm having a terrible time figuring out how to ask what I think would be most helpful without it being too long). FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This isn't about BLPSPS, this is about EXPERTSPS. That was just adding it to the carve out for when it can be used on BLPS, but doesn't make it not an SPS. In the context of this page this is positioning a university website as a superior source to a preprint. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand that this essay is about EXPERTSPS. But you said "I doubt a website posting undergoes substantial peer review," which I interpreted as a reference to your earlier comment that "By the WP:USESPS definition of SPS, [a university website] would be an SPS." And I was pointing out that under the current wording of BLPSPS, using a university website to confirm that a professor works at that university would not count as a BLPSPS violation. Similarly, if the person worked for NIH, the NIH website could be used to confirm that. And yes, I think that an employer's website is a better source of employment info than a preprint -- who knows better than the employer whether that person actually works for them? But you could also use the preprint info under BLPSELFPUB.

I continue to think that this essay is geared towards preprints, when editors also use blogs under EXPERTSPS, and sometimes even self-published books (as was the case with a niche book on glassmaking history that someone asked about here not that long ago). And I don't know that all expert content neatly falls into either routine or novel, or at least there needs to be an example where the decision about which category is less clear. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying it can't be used to confirm BLP material, it is not a BLPSPS violation because of the recent changes, but it is still an SPS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but it's clear from recent discussions about WP:SPS that editors do not all agree about what does and doesn't fall in the SPS category, and the current definition ("Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content") forces us to makes guesses about whether such editorial review has occurred (some sources identify their editors, but many do not) and seems to conflate SPS with whether the source is a RS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion does make a valid point. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean, a university website is self-evidently SPS based on the definition of SPS, regardless of whether their postings undergo "editorial review". JoelleJay (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you arguing that editorial review for university website content always involves a conflict of interest? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. JoelleJay (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. In such a scenario, what are the two (or more) interests which are in (potential) conflict? Rotary Engine ^talk 23:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You don't think the university has a conflict of interest in its coverage of its employees? JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

In the example mentioned above, a University staff directory (list of faculty, subjects taught, contact details, etc.), the University has a responsibility to various stakeholders (other faculty, students, staff) to provide accurate and up to date information. It also has an interest in providing accurate information, because it demonstrates competence and care, and reflects the University in a positive light. But that is an aligned interest, not a conflicting interest.

In an instance of less trivial coverage, perhaps a web article highlighting a professor receiving an award or some new & innovative research, or athletic achievement, the University has a duty to its employees & students, and a responsibility to readers, to provide fair and accurate coverage. It also has an interest in reflecting the University in a positive light. For the most part, these would be aligned interests, only rarely conflicting. Even in the obvious example of academic misconduct, the duty to the staff is to be fair, not positive; the duty to readers to be accurate.

A University website certainly has a self-interest in reflecting the University positively, as does any other organisation or business.

What I'm not seeing, is another interest which is always in conflict with that interest.

Which is why I asked ... what are the two interests which are in conflict? Rotary Engine ^talk 07:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

What would be a conflict of interest to you?
In the context of Wikipedia SPS, COI clearly encompasses any material produced by a group that is about the group and does not undergo independent review. A COI relationship does not need to yield biased or inaccurate or even non-trivial content for it to still be a COI. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, the material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group,

[M]aterial contained within company websites is exactly what university website pages that are about the university (as opposed to those covering academic topics) are. This is explained further in the WP:COISOURCE essay linked in SPS policy. JoelleJay (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, whether "the material contained within company websites" should be included as an example for WP:SPS is contested. For example, in a recent long WT:V discussion on the definition of WP:SPS, some cited definitions of "self-published" in Merriam Webster ("to publish (a book) using the author's own resources") and American Heritage ("Published by oneself or with one's own money"), and Alanscottwalker said "No, the employees [of a corporation] are not self publishing, they are being published by the corporation, and its the corporation's resources that are being used"; on the other hand, WhatamIdoing wrote "I would start with the assumption that everything in a university website is self-published," even though you seem to say that content about academic subjects isn't. Although it's been over 30 days, the RfC on whether grey literature from advocacy orgs is always or only sometimes SPS is currently open, and people have expressed different views there too. Once it's closed, I'll likely create an RfC about the WP:SPS definition itself, though I'm struggling with the wording. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

What would be a conflict of interest to you?

The lead section at conflict of interest provides some good descriptions - A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another. ... A widely used definition is: "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." (emphasis added). All of the definitions describe two or more distinct interests (duties, responsibilities, goals, desires) which are in conflict. In any COI, it ought to be possible to identify those interests.

Example: A Wikipedia editor editing articles about themselves or their employer has a conflict of interest between a) the self-interest to show the subject in a(n overly-?)positive light, and b) their duty as an editor to produce article content which is NPOV. Identifying the conflicting interests is not difficult.

In the context of Wikipedia SPS, COI clearly encompasses any material produced by a group that is about the group and does not undergo independent review.

This is what I am not understanding. How? Why? I can see that a self-publisher, when writing about themselves, would have some degree of self-interest; less so when writing on other topics. But what other interest does the self-publisher have which always conflicts? Rotary Engine ^talk 23:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

We are operating under the Wikipedia definition of COI, not whatever strict legal definition is being used elsewhere, though I think it should also be obvious that the university's duty to present itself in a good light is always going to be in direct conflict with any interest in always truthfully presenting all relevant facts about itself. JoelleJay (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if we're operating under the WP:COI definition, that guideline answers "What is conflict of interest?" with "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest." The analog for a university would be "While editing [material on the university's website], an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the [university]. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest." What is the external role or relationship that you think creates a conflict of interest for a university editor? The SPS policy doesn't link to WP:COISOURCE, WP:COI, or the mainspace COI article, so it's ambiguous what is meant there. The SPS policy should make clearer what it means for a non-WP editor to be independent/lack a conflict of interest.

Would you say that marketing material is always SPS, even if published by a source like a book publisher that we don't normally think of as SPS, since the "duty to present itself in a good light is always going to be in direct conflict with any interest in always truthfully presenting all relevant facts about itself"? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. This links directly to COISOURCE. Are you arguing that the "conflict of interest" referenced by the footnote at WP:SPS is different from the "conflict of interest" linked in the section directly above it? JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

You're quoting from WP:QS, not from WP:SPS. Whether a source is questionable is distinct from whether it's self-published (a source might be one, the other, both, or neither). I don't assume that the meaning of "conflict of interest" in the SPS footnote is the same as the meaning in the QS section, not least because when the footnote text was introduced in 2011, the QS section didn't say anything about conflicts of interest / didn't link to COISOURCE. I also wouldn't prioritize the interpretation of COI in an essay over the interpretation in a guideline (WP:COI), notwithstanding that a policy (WP:QS) links to the essay. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Does someone other than the author have editorial control? If yes then it's not self-published. The quality of a source needs to match the content it's supports, and there are many factors to reliability of which being self-published is just one. There is no need to exclude masses of sources by describing them as self-published, when by the common usage in language and the common practice in Wikipedia they are not considered so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That would make group blogs not SPS - which is clearly not the consensus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Neither is the definition in USESPS the consensus, or anywhere close to it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Have to agree with @PARAKANYAA here. Better to just remove this essay. This does not help. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Would WP:EXCEPTIONAL also apply, or were the claims you were dealing with just preliminary and not particularly surprising? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather not get into the specifics, since this is meant to be general advice. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd change the title to something like "When can you invoke expert SPS?" (Yes, that's clear from the body, but I still think the title should match. The essay clearly isn't addressing the other time that one can invoke SPS: for ABOUTSELF.) Same thing where it says "an SPS" in the body. Also, I think it would help if you included an example about an expert blog. I have little experience with the use of expert blogs and couldn't say how most are used, but my sense is that Science-Based Medicine and Quackwatch are mostly used to combat scams, disinformation, and the like. Of "routine" and "novel," which category would you say that falls under, or would you instead conclude that there needs to be a third category? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Moved. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The article states a generalization about SPS for things that may make sense for preprints, which are by their nature things intended for an academic-intensive realm, but little sense for other matters such as sports and entertainment. Taking myself as an example: As a writer on comics history, the things that I write for Hogan's Alley (i.e., not an SPS) are not subject to peer review or much more than a quick editorial eye, so they don't differ significantly in factual verification over the things that I post on The Aaugh Blog or on my Comics Show & Tell with Nat Gertler video series. The sort of sources we cite for non-sciency topics just don't have that degree of differentiation, and expert will often find novel things in those realms and publish them through SPSes. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but in those cases, your (i'll take you at your word) expert opinion will not put be novel results/claims forward. Like you might be a source for misspellings of Charles Schulz [113], but you didn't put forward the novel claim that reading Peanuts cures iron deficiency. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

No, but I did put forth the novel claim that there was a Black superhero called Sgt. Joe who predates the frequently-cited "first Black superhero". Unlike the spelling of Schulz, this is a claim that has appeared nowhere in the discussion of Black superheroes before I started sharing the information. (As to whether I'm an "expert", while I generally avoid using that term for myself, I am an award-winning writer on comics history topics.) I would not be a WP:MEDRS for that iron deficiency claim, but the field of discussion of comics history is not done primarily through academic, peer-reviewed sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not really a novel claim. The proof's in the pudding. You can clearly see a date of 1944 on the strip. I don't know who's the frequently-cited 'first black superhero', but if it's Black Panther people are dumb, and if it's Lion Man, that's 1947. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a novel claim because no one else has ever made that specific claim before. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

But this is exactly the kind of thing people argue about. The "proof in the pudding" is SYNTH. I think that OR would be acceptable for saying that the date of Sgt. Joe's publication. Would that then be enough to contradict a RS such as NYT saying that Black Panther is the first black superhero? (People do say that, but I think only in the context of the Marvel movies and really mean "First black superhero with his own movie")

I think a good example of how Wikipedians handle SPS is this debacle.

As far as expert blog goes, I think this is a good example: https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2022/12/reindeer.html A named expert contradicts several "Reliable Sources" such as NBC, NPR, McGill University, and The Atlantic. I am not sure if this contains a novel claim. It might. It probably isn't worth writing a peer reviewed article about, so this might be the only form it appears in. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I've actually seen claims from people that Black Panther was the first Black comics superhero.... but even if they were just talking about Marvel characters in movies, I believe Eric Cross Brooks would like to have a word. - Nat Gertler (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

And there's also Lothar in Mandrake the Magician, from the 1930s, though I don't know about him being a superhero, or the exact date of his first appearance. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a novel claim if no one else has described this character as a "superhero"... and given that no one seems to have mentioned him for 7+ decades following publication, that's much the case. (While Lion Man might've been the first Black superhero in comic books, the most commonly cited first Black superhero was in a 1945 storyline in "Bungleton Green", another strip from the Black weekly newspapers.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

+1, this is my concern. I do not think this idea works well outside of the preprint context. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess it could be titled: "when to use preprints" Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That could also be a title. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything that you'd place in the "Routine" category that either doesn't fall under WP:ABOUTSELF or where existing peer-reviewed research would be a better source (e.g., where the preprint situates its focus in relation to peer-reviewed research)? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

See the second bullet about primordial black holes being a candidate for dark matter. This information is context for the research in the preprint, it's not a novel claim made by the preprint.

Another example could be using bioRxiv 10.1101/355933 (let's assume it didn't clear peer review for sake of the argument) to define/support that the concept of absolute pitch refers to the ability of someone to be able to tell the exact pitch of a sound they hear without comparing to another reference sound (e.g. hearing a 880 Hz note and instantly knowing it's A5). This is general background provided to the paper to situate the research, not a novel claim (yes/no people can or can't acquire this ability in adulthood if they didn't possess it in childhood). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This information is context for the research in the preprint, it's not a novel claim made by the preprint.
But why would we want or need a preprint to state that when clearly it is already actually published elsewhere? JoelleJay (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Both of those examples fall in my second category: it can be sourced to peer-reviewed research, which would be a better source. But I didn't word my question well. I'm wondering if you have an example of "routine" info where it neither falls under ABOUTSELF nor can be found in peer-reviewed research. Seems to me that by definition, other than ABOUTSELF, if a claim in the preprint can't be found in peer-reviewed lit, then it's novel. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Live 365 and Euphoriazine

Euphoriazine and Live 365 are blogs which have notability but do they have reliability? Live 365 is a well known website but is it reliable? When it comes to Live 365 I don't find it to be that reliable in the slightest and all seem to be WP:RSSELF by a woman named Katheryn. I would also like to ask about Euphoriazine, a blog that calls themselves a magazine and has sufficient information and well written sources and also does interviews with celebrities such as Paris Hilton. I would like consensus on both of these. This0k (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE; see SPI — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Use of YouGov poll in psychology/social science?

Currently checking references to improve the Family estrangement article. In the subsection Family_estrangement#Demographics the article cites data from a YouGov poll. Unsure whether this is a reliable source. Does this meet Wikipedia's reliability guidelines? Baresbran (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It's fine for the attributed outcome of a poll (they're a fairly well established polling company), though polls in generally aren't the most useful things for our content. Being a primary source, any analytic or evaluative conclusions would be improper, and I don't think they do to much to interpret things for us. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Good to know. So it's a bit more useful than anticipated. So maybe good enough to keep at least until better sources are forthcoming. Thank you for your prompt and informative reply. Baresbran (talk) 04:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Is jewishgen.org an RS for List of shtetls?

It's used 18 times. Loads of dead links there also, maybe on wayback. The website says "All information on KehilaLinks pages is provided by JewishGen volunteers. Each site is the responsibility of the individual site owner, so please contact him or her for further information. JewishGen does not verify the information provided, nor do we have any additional information about these places which does not appear publicly on the JewishGen website." It's used for all the Yiddish names in the list. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely WP:PRIMARY and seems pretty close to a WP:SPS so, at best, use with caution. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223 It doesn't seem to be used carefully there. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I'd say better sources would be good at List of shtetls. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The site tells you very properly how far it's reliable, and I don't think it's far enough for Wikipedia. The link Learn how to add your own KehilaLinks page goes to a page inviting everybody to create "Your Own KehilaLinks Site" and telling them "Even if you've never created a web page before, you can do this! Below and on the linked pages are detailed instructions to guide you through the process. All you need for a basic page is an internet connection, a web browser, a word processor, and these directions." The sites thus created will per JewishGen's policy be reviewed by the KehilaLinks Vice-President and Project Coordinator, before being listed on a KehilaLinks Index Page", which is not nothing, but the disclaimer Doug quotes above tells us it's not very much, either. ("JewishGen does not verify the information provided".) I should think most of the content is good, but to invite volunteers in such a manner and then not verify their information surely makes it pretty much a WP:SPS. Bishonen | tålk 10:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC).

No Film School

Can I get a reliability check for https://nofilmschool.com re:reliability and citing in articles? It feels... "bloggy" to me, and I can't find any sources online that lend it any credence. Thanks, all, — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if we do a check, but rather, if under a particular context the source may be reliable or not. What is this source being used for? Ramos1990 (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Excessive primary sources cited in Origin of SARS-CoV-2

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.

---

I started a talk topic discussing the use of primary (non-Medrs) sources to cite biomedical claims in Origin of SARS-CoV-2 on 12/12/24 and it seems to have not been taken up by the group. An extended confirmed user needs to fix several citations or apply a primary sources tag:

I also made an extended confirmed edit request yesterday with regards to one of the citations in particular, but have not received any reply. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That page has many active watchers, the edit request was only added yesterday someone will come round to answer it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It is somewhat strange to me that this article is still extended-confirmed protected, since it's been years and the article is now -- I mean, in the whole year of 2024 it got 62 edits. Ugh, but it has been moved a bunch of times...

2024-07-13T03:53:04 TarnishedPath talk contribs block moved protection settings from Origin of COVID-19 to Origin of SARS-CoV-2 (Origin of COVID-19 moved to Origin of SARS-CoV-2: Per Talk:Origin_of_COVID-19#Rename_page_to_Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2_?, the name of this article is a category error. using Move+)   (thank)

2023-07-18T12:40:19 Hilst talk contribs block moved protection settings from Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 to Origin of COVID-19 (Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 moved to Origin of COVID-19: Moved per Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Requested move 11 July 2023 using rmCloser)   (thank)

 2021-02-12T16:15:42 ToBeFree talk contribs block protected Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 [Edit=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite) (WP:GS/COVID19) (hist | change) Tag: Twinkle (thank)

@ToBeFree: Do we still need this? jp×g🗯️ 15:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a discussion about sources. Discussion about page protection can be had at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. There is still no substantive reply to my talk topic (Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2#Faulty sources) posted 6 days ago regarding abundant use of primary sources in the article. I found at least 4 primary sources used to cite biomedical claims within the first 8 works cited. Then I stopped counting. Nobody has touched my edit request from yesterday (Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2#Edit Request: remove or tag citation #4 (non-MEDRS). This article needs a lot of work and/or the primary sources flag. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that removing a single redundant source among several is probably simply not a high priority for many people. Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The use of primary sources for four of the first eight references to cite biomedical content suggests a broader pattern of problematic sourcing in the article. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit requests should be made on talk pages. jp×g🗯️ 19:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I brought this up on the talk page and it has not been taken up by the editors there. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest you review WP:DEADLINE - people will get to your edit request when they get to it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! JPxG, the origin of the virus is probably the most contentious part of the entire topic area. However, this specific article, despite being the main article about the origin, is of course much less visited and edited than the articles about the pandemic and the virus. One might argue that this increases the risk of someone pushing their point of view into the article, but we'll see; it's almost 2025 and I have downgraded to semi-protection to see if the craziness of people has decreased enough to allow mostly-normal editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: :) jp×g🗯️ 22:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

References

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.

ResearchGate

Hello! I want to discuss on reliability of ResearchGate whether is reliable or not. I see some articles especially on AfC. Although, there is a previous discussion on ResearchGate but i want to be sure if this is a reliable or not. Royiswariii Talk! 02:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Not reliable. It's a social networking site. If the ResearchGate content is a paper which has been published in a reliable journal, then cite that publication. Rotary Engine ^talk 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Some guidance and links to previous discussions at WP:RGATE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

ResearchGate itself isn't reliable. As a repository, the publications might or might not be reliable. If they're published in a legitimate journal, for instance, or in a non-self-published book, they're reliable. But it's a previously unpublished paper or a pre-print, they're not reliable (for instance, I have some papers from undergrad and grad school on there that have not gone through any review or publication process). And for theses, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

What to do about News Nation and its obsession with UFOs?

NewsNation is widely used here and, overall, seems to be a generally reliable source. It's cited across the encyclopedia and, more importantly, by other RS. Reputationally, it probably fares better than CNN as of late.

That said, for the last two years they've dove head first into UFO stories and have basically positioned themselves as UFO Central. Most of this reporting originates from Ross Coulthart [114] who appears to be their dedicated UFO "beat" reporter.

I'm not going to do a blow-by-blow of their coverage as anyone can google it, but it seems to usually follow the same basic format: stories on both significant but also obscure UFO reports, sensational adjectives in the headline ("Bombshell!", "Groundbreaking!"), interviews with true believers are given first (and sometimes only) reference. We have a short, but non-exhaustive, section on this in the article.

This is really the only major red flag in their reporting and, as such, has not been subject to heavy scrutiny by any other sources. But it recently revved-up its UFO reporting machinery in response to the recent hysteria involving misidentification of airplanes in New Jersey. I have a sense that, at some point in the near future, there will have to be an RfC on the question of News Nation. But, for now, I'm hoping to get some general feedback about how the community feels we should treat this source when it comes to this specific fringe topic (UFOs). Chetsford (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I wrote that section on the News Nation article. Ross Coulthart is a hardcore alien believer, and it's obvious that their coverage of the issue is sensational. Their reporting on the issue should be generally discounted in favour of more reliable sources. Its probably sometimes okay for routine, non controversial information on the issue on a case by case basis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If the problem is not only one narrow topic, but also one specific writer, then maybe we should treat Mr. Coulhart as an individual source and consider him unreliable. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to any actual inaccuracies in his reporting of material facts that fall into the category of being 'unreliable'? Whether we personally believe or disbelieve in the account of a source in one of his stories is our choice as a reader. From what I can observe he simply reports various findings and speculations of often relatively credible individuals like military personnel. Is there a particular topic or story that you feel was improperly reported on, non-factually based or was overall misreported? Because simply covering the UFO topic as a subject matter should not be the metric by which we say whether a journalist is or isn't reliable. Also, if there is a news source that is generally reliable beyond UFOs but reports on it more intentionally, should we expect other sources who don't cover the topic to be the sole arbitrators of truth on the subject? SentientPlasma (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

"Can you point to any actual inaccuracies in his reporting of material facts" In general, nothing claimed by UFO fans is perfectly disprovable. If I said all the members of the WMF board are controlled by the temporarily disembodied minds of Mantids from Zeta Reticuli, you'd be hard-pressed to definitively disprove that.
But the spirit of WP:FRINGE/PS is that things that are "obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification". In that sense, on 13 December - in relation to the 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings -- Coulthart said "... the White House is making completely false claims. The people of New Jersey are not alone"! [115]. If your position is that evidence is undiscoverable because it's been hidden in a multi-dimensional conspiracy using 24th century technology then that claim can never be disproved. However, we have multiple non-governmental, independent experts who have said these are all misidentification of terrestrial aircraft. So I think, at that point, it's fair to say Coulthart is advancing a fringe theory that doesn't need to be disproved under our standards but can, rather, simply "be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification". Chetsford (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think sensationalism is necessarily a reliability issue. It should still be possible to distinguish facts from opinion. For example, in this article[116] Coulthart (very weirdly?) quotes himself in the 3rd person, which makes that passage his opinion, which might be usable if his opinion were notable and relevant; it states The FBI has concluded the drones do not belong to the U.S. military and that foreign governments are not behind the objects. which is a claim about what the FBI said, which in principle can be fact-checked (I haven’t attempted to do so); and it states in the article’s own voice: A federal probe into mysterious drone sightings in New Jersey and New York continues to produce a lack of substantial answers, which is some kind of puffery but not flat-out wrong.

WP:PRIMARYNEWS might be a reason not to use these sources rather than because of reliability. Another reason is that there are surely higher quality sources available. Is any article content being supported solely by one of Coulthart’s articles? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Setting aside the question of Coulthart specifically for a moment, is any NewsNation reporting on the subject of UFOs reliable? They've clearly made an intentioanl editorial decision to advance a specific pseudoscientific perspective with respect to UFOs and hiring Coulthart as a UFO beat reporter appears merely to be a manifestation of management decision-making. Chetsford (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I just searched for “news nation UFOs” and found this: [117]. It certainly plays up the fact that someone said “outer space”, but that’s presented as a quote, not as a fact. I couldn’t detect anything obviously wrong with the reporting. Have you seen them state something clearly pseudoscientific or false as fact? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Just four days ago Coulthart said during a NewsNation broadcast "... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"! [118] Given the context, it's clear that by "not alone" he didn't mean that other humans occupy the continent of North America other than New Jerseyans, but was implying that shape-shifting dimensional travelers from the third moon of Zeta Reticuli were monitoring the Trenton Bus Terminal from their invisible rocket sleds. Chetsford (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I watched the video. The full sentence is “The people of New Jersey are not alone, there are now sightings of purported drones all over the world…” which is not a pseudoscientific claim (it may still be false, I don’t know, I haven’t checked). Maybe the choice to use the phrase “not alone” is a dogwhistle to the true believers, but it’s got a clear plain-English meaning too (that there have been sightings elsewhere in the world). I’d be inclined to treat that video as an interview with Coulthart, hence as reliable for the opinions of Coulthart only. It’s introduced as a “discussion” rather than a news segment. This kind of video is a really poor source. In live video, people say things off-the-cuff, don’t pause to explain or consider sources, can’t edit after a period of reflection, speak in ambiguous run-on sentences… A written source should always be preferable. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Kaaba: Demand for Deletion of Blasphemous Imaged of the Last Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Subject: Request for Immediate Removal of Blasphemous Images from the "Kaaba" Wikipedia Page Dear Wikipedia Team, I hope this message finds you well. My name is [Your Name], and I am writing as a member of the Muslim community deeply concerned about the presence of pictorial depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his blessed companions on the Wikipedia page titled "Kaaba" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba). These images, located under the 'History' tab, are highly offensive and blasphemous to Muslims around the world, as any visual representation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is strictly prohibited in Islam. The specific images in question are: 1. "Muhammad at the Ka'ba" from the Siyer-i Nebi, showing Muhammad with a veiled face, c. 1595. 2. A miniature from 1307 CE depicting Muhammad fixing the black stone into the Kaaba. These images not only disrespect our beliefs but also deeply hurt the sentiments of millions in the Muslim community, including myself. The existence of these images on a public platform like Wikipedia fosters misunderstanding and disrespects our faith, which is rooted in profound reverence for our beloved Last Prophet (Peace be Upon Him). We kindly request that these images be removed from the Wikipedia page immediately, without any delay or further explanation. We understand that Wikipedia requires supporting evidence for high-profile articles. In this case, the prohibition of visual depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is well-documented in Islamic teachings and widely recognized by scholars and religious authorities. Numerous fatwas based on Qur'anic scripture and hadith traditions from all schools of thought strictly prohibit drawing images of the last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his blessed companions, deeming such acts as blasphemy. This prohibition is rooted in Islamic teachings that emphasize the importance of avoiding idolatry and misrepresentation. Scholars unanimously agree that there is no permissibility whatsoever for visual representations of the Last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or his blessed companions, as such depictions are considered blasphemous and fundamentally incompatible with Islamic teachings. Furthermore, surveys indicate that a significant portion of Muslims find such depictions offensive. The Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization highlights that Muslims believe visual depictions of all prophets should be prohibited, particularly those of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as they hurt their emotions and go against their faith (Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization). We urge you to consider the sensitivity of this matter and its impact on millions of Muslims worldwide. Addressing Wikipedia's FAQ: 1.Wikipedia is not censored: While Wikipedia aims to provide a neutral point of view, it is essential to consider how these images offend deeply held beliefs. The presence of such content does not foster an inclusive environment for all users. 2.Historical accuracy: The images in question are historically inaccurate, as acknowledged by Wikipedia. The artists who created these works lived centuries after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and could not have seen him. Using inaccurate images perpetuates misconceptions rather than providing educational value. 3.Offense to Muslims: Wikipedia recognizes that depictions of Muhammad are offensive to many Muslims. This offense affects millions globally and cannot be dismissed as a minor issue. Suggesting that users change their settings to hide images is not a viable solution; such representations on a public platform like Wikipedia perpetuate disrespect and harm. 4.Preventing idolatry: The traditional prohibition against images of prophets serves to prevent idolatry—a principle that should be respected in any educational context. The presence of these images on Wikipedia violates this fundamental religious principle. 5.Comparison to other figures: While Wikipedia may use images of historical figures like Jesus, it is crucial to note that any depiction of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) is universally forbidden in Islam. This distinction makes comparisons inadequate and unjustifiable. 6.Separate link for images: Creating a separate link for these images is also not an acceptable solution. The core issue remains that any depiction of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) is considered blasphemous in Islam, and there is no allowance for such visual representations under any circumstances. The existence of these images on a public platform like Wikipedia is inherently offensive and harmful. We acknowledge the FAQ section on the Talk:Muhammad page but believe that this request warrants special consideration due to its unique nature. The presence of these images does not contribute to the educational value of the article but rather perpetuates significant cultural and religious offense. Examples of Content Removal from Wikipedia 1.John Seigenthaler Wikipedia Hoax (2005): A false and defamatory article about journalist John Seigenthaler was posted on Wikipedia and removed after being identified. This instance illustrates Wikipedia's commitment to maintaining content integrity by removing material that is harmful or misleading. 2.Essjay Controversy (2007): Contributions from a prominent Wikipedia editor who falsified his credentials were scrutinized and subsequently removed, demonstrating that Wikipedia actively removes content undermining its reliability. 3.Wiki-PR Scandal (2012): Manipulated content created by a company using sockpuppet accounts was removed, showcasing Wikipedia's efforts to prevent abuse of its platform. 4.Orangemoody Investigation (2015): Fraudulent content posted by a group of blackmailers using sockpuppet accounts was removed, highlighting Wikipedia's proactive stance against harmful content. Relevant Policies Wikipedia's Policy on Images: According to your guidelines, "images that would bring the project into disrepute... may be removed by any user." The continued presence of these offensive images directly contradicts this policy as they clearly offend a significant portion of users. Wikipedia's Policy on Offensive Material: 1.According to Wikipedia: Offensive material, while Wikipedia aims to include material that may offend, it explicitly states that "offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." The inclusion of these blasphemous images does not meet this criterion as they serve no educational purpose but rather cause harm. 2.Neutral Point of View: As outlined in Wikipedia's Guide to Deletion, all content must adhere to a neutral point of view (NPOV). The presence of these offensive images violates this policy by failing to respect a significant portion of your readership who find such content unacceptable. 3.Speedy Deletion Policy: This policy states that pages can be deleted without discussion if they meet criteria for speedy deletion due to being obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Deletion policy). Given their blasphemous nature, these images qualify for immediate removal under this guideline. 4.Content Integrity Maintenance: Content that undermines Wikipedia's reliability or trustworthiness can be removed proactively by editors or administrators (Wikipedia:Content Integrity). Allowing these offensive images undermines your credibility as an encyclopedia committed to accuracy and respect. 5.Adherence to Neutrality: Wikipedia has a strong stance against Holocaust denial and antisemitism, clearly reflected in the Holocaust denial page, which debunks false claims and provides historical evidence. This commitment to neutrality and respect for deeply held beliefs should be extended to the depiction of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as well. Handling of Other Sensitive Topics: 1.Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Wikipedia handles content related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with sensitivity and neutrality, ensuring a balanced representation of different perspectives. 2.Abortion: Wikipedia presents diverse viewpoints on abortion respectfully, acknowledging the sensitivity of the topic. 3.Censorship and Internet Freedom: Wikipedia respects local laws and cultural sensitivities, demonstrating its commitment to respecting different cultural and religious practices. In light of these considerations and your own policies, I urge you to take immediate action to remove these offensive images from the "Kaaba" page and review your guidelines regarding sensitive religious content moving forward. Thank you for your understanding and swift action on this matter. Sincerely, Yasha Ullah Afghan Jeelanshah (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

Welcome to Wikipedia. I think you may have found the wrong place in posting your message.

This is the Reliable Sources noticeboard, where editors discuss reliability of particular sources. If you'd like to discuss specific content in a particular article, you should open a discussion on its talk page, not here. In this case, the page you are looking for is Talk:Kaaba.

Cheers,

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes the talk page of where the image is used would be the better place, not here. Here we look at reliability issues of sources. Also please see the FAQ on images of Muhammad here [119]. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear Czello,

Thank you for your response. I understand your concern regarding the frequency of my messages; however, I feel compelled to clarify my position. The reason I reached out across multiple boards is that despite numerous attempts by others to engage with the editors on the Talk:Kaaba page, there has been no action taken regarding the removal of the blasphemous images of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

This lack of response is precisely why I sought to bring attention to this matter elsewhere.

This raises a critical question: who within the Wikipedia community should I engage with to ensure that this issue is handled logically and intelligently?

It is vital for me to advocate for the removal of these images, as they are deeply offensive to many around the world and do not align with Wikipedia's own guidelines on offensive material. As stated in Wikipedia's policy on Offensive Material, "offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." The images in question do not meet this criterion and serve no educational purpose, only causing harm. Furthermore, the presence of these images violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, failing to respect a significant portion of your readership who find such content unacceptable.

I appreciate your understanding and hope we can work together toward a resolution that respects all users' perspectives. Or you can guide me to a editor who would seriously look into the complaint?

Sincerely,

[Yasha Ullah Afghan] 202.47.33.85 (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Help:Options to hide an image may be of use to you. You might consider using websites like WikiShia instead of Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear Gråbergs Gråa Sång,

Thank you for your response. I understand your concern regarding the frequency of my messages and suggesting to use the options to hide the blasphemous images; however, I feel compelled to clarify my position. The reason I reached out across multiple boards is that despite numerous attempts by others to engage with the editors on the Talk:Kaaba page, there has been no action taken regarding the removal of the blasphemous images of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

This lack of response is precisely why I sought to bring attention to this matter elsewhere.

This raises a critical question: who within the Wikipedia community should I engage with to ensure that this issue is handled logically and intelligently?

It is vital for me to advocate for the removal of these images, as they are deeply offensive to many around the world and do not align with Wikipedia's own guidelines on offensive material. As stated in Wikipedia's policy on Offensive Material, "offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." The images in question do not meet this criterion and serve no educational purpose, only causing harm. Furthermore, the presence of these images violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, failing to respect a significant portion of your readership who find such content unacceptable.

I appreciate your understanding and hope we can work together toward a resolution that respects all users' perspectives. Or you can guide me to a editor who would seriously look into the complaint?

Sincerely,

[Yasha Ullah Afghan] 202.47.33.85 (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

hoteps onesource ref a Miranda Lovett

Miranda Lovett is a first-year PhD student studying ancient Greek art and archaeology with Dr. Emily Egan. Miranda graduated magne cum laude from the University of Mary Washington, receiving her B.A. in Classics with an archaeology emphasis in 2017. Google shows one op-ed to her name yet she is used 12 times on article hoteps. I dont think she should have that weight or any weight in the article. I never filed one of these before and the process is confusing. Hausa warrior (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The chances are that the article is used as much as it is because it was convenient for confirming information prior editors wanted to include. It isn't a WP:BESTSOURCE but Wikipedia regularly uses far less reliable sources. This is a due weight question more than a reliability one. I guess the question I'd ask is whether there are other academics, more due inclusion, who contradict any of Lovett's statements? Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It is probably relevant where the article was published. Are there other sources that disagree? Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The article was published in Sapiens which is a good publisher. Lovett being a master's graduate / PhD student is why I was saying probably not WP:BESTSOURCE but I'd say her work in that journal definitely meets a minimum bar for reliability so that's why this is ideally a WP:DUE question. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Nigerian newspapers

WP:RSNP has nothing about Nigerian newspapers, but references a project-list of them which seems rather too optimistic. It seems to me that these newspapers are filled with completely unreliable promopieces. You can see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martina Ononiwu, where a completely unknown Nigerian/French person supposedly got a US-only award from President Biden. Not a single source outside Nigeria confirms this, there seems to be no reason at all why she would have received this, but it got reported by Vanguard, Guardian, Nation, Roving Naija, The Sun...

We had similar issues with e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musa Muhammed (entrepreneur), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omogboye Saheed Ayodeji, and probably many others which I can't find as easily.

Isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers which routinely publish such completely unreliable promo pieces as articles? Fram (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that if you deprecated these newspapers, there'd be basically no usable Nigerian sources left, which hardly seems good in terms of attempting to fix Wikipedia's coverage biases. I do agree that it is standard practice at a lot of Nigerian newspapers to run effectively undisclosed promotional material, and it seems good to note this somewhere on RSP, but I think deprecating them outright would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's a relevant BBC News story about the issue from 2015 [120]. Apparently Nigerian newspapers also regularly suppress stories due to advertisier pressure. Another interesting story from 2020 [121] which says [Nigerian newspapers] realised that their top quality journalism or influential columnists alone weren’t going to win the battle for eyeballs. Enter “viral content” and clickbait headlines. Press releases were repackaged as news stories, fact-checking and verification became redundant. Aanu Adeoye says, “the traditional gatekeepers of journalism (newspapers) in this country don’t give a hoot about the quality of what they’re churning out daily.” In a few years, stories from Nigeria’s top newspapers looked as hurriedly written as stories from blogs. It had become a game of who could break the news the fastest and who could churn out the most news. Nigerian traditional media beat the upstarts at their own game and occupied spots at the top of Nigeria’s most visited websites. But the true cost of this pyrrhic victory was quality control. If even mainstream Nigerian newspapers can't be trusted as factual sources then it's not clear what Nigerian sources can be trusted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I really don’t get arguments like this one. How does it help Wikipedia to use unreliable sources from countries with more limited media landscapes? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia and the WMF's goals is to be "diverse" and to lessen systemic bias to western nations. Limiting coverage to Western liberal democracies will obviously prevent that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

How does it help the English Wikipedia to eliminate practically all English-language sources for about 1 billion English-speakers? There's not an easy answer, here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a problem with virtually every newspaper published in Nigeria and India. We cannot simply deprecate all news from two of the largest English speaking countries in the world. Or, we could, but we would get called very racist for doing so. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing racist about applying basic standards of reliability to sources. If there are newspapers from Nigeria, or India, or the US, or ... which don't have these issues, then they will be treated as reliable sources. But we shouldn't be afraid to label a source as being unreliable just because someone might shout "racism" without good reason. Allowing unreliable sources just because we want to have more articles about a country is probably the worst thing we could do. Fram (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the damage to the encyclopedia that comes from effectively banning most coverage of two of the most populous countries in the world outweighs the benefit here. We are biased enough towards the West as is. I do not think there are major newspapers in either country without these practices. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Its not bias to refuse to allow falsehoods, it is racist (to my mind) to give them exceptional status. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If it results in a racially biased coverage how is that not racist? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Becasue we allow other African news media, its just that we do not allow, falsehoods. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It still has a disparate impact in a racially biased manner. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No its not, it is based upon lack of truth, no one here has raised race once apart from you. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Whatever the intention banning the entire media ecosystem of a developing country of 230 million people (plus India's 1.43 billion because we would ban them for the same reason) and making our encyclopedia irrelevant to large swathes of the non western world would have a biased outcome - doesn't matter the intention if it gets you the same result. Is that a sacrifice we are willing to accept? Because if so we need to stop pretending we have any interest in "combatting systemic bias". PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

if these sources want to be accepted as reliable on Wikipedia, they should give up their practice of publishing paid news and writing puff pieces for anyone willing to pay. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If we are going to be banning every single news source of a country of 230 million, then we should be very aware we are doing it. And possibly throw out all the project's virtue signaling over countering systemic bias along with it, if we decide to go that route. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

We should allow perpetuation of misinformation on Wikipedia because it would be racist not to? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It would disproportionately affect the writing and sourcing on articles and topics on highly populated non-Western formerly colonized countries. That’s pretty obviously racist whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (disparate impact or something analogous). If we do it, we will get called racist for it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but it is reality. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It would affect them by prohibiting bad information from bad sources to be included. Sounds good. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we do the same and ban all news from India? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this claim should be presumed true but not notable. The PVSA award is given out annually by any number of authorized NGOs to their own volunteers without any US government involvement, and it does come with a form letter in the president's name. Ononiwu apparently received hers from Innovate Africa Corp. There's no reason any US press to write up such a thing, and there doesn't seem to be a public database of honorees. Note however that Ononiwu should not have been eligible for the award because she's not a US citizen or permanent resident. I guess these newspapers went along with exaggerating the award's prestige, but I don't see it as a major problem for reliability on facts. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it could be worth writing some guidance along the same lines as WP:NEWSORGINDIA, though I'm not sure it rises to the point of a general deprecation yet. Reuters Institute report here might also be helpful in developing such guidance. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

As with WP:NEWSORGINDIA Nigerian news sources are full of undisclosed advertorials. It's a common practice, so editors need to be cautious with anything that uses promotional language. Their use for establishing notability needs to be seen in a similar light.

Formally deprecating all Nigerian news media just isn't an option, in the same way deprecating all India news media with the same issue isn't an option. I would support changing the language of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, so it highlights the same issue in other countries not just India. I doubt this is an issue limited to those markets, and one that will likely become more of an issue everywhere with the difficulties newsedia currently face. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I recall at least one instance of them churning out AI generated puff pieces e.i daily times ng puff piece about Pranav Adani and GPTzero analysis of first 5000 words of it. Oddly enough Daily Times NG is listed as a "generally reliable" source for Nigerian topics at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources.- Ratnahastin (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

There's evidence that their promotional articles aren't reliable. But I've yet to see anyone present evidence here that other kinds of news from these sources are unreliable. Does anyone here have evidence of that? If not, I don't see why we'd deprecate these Nigerian news sources in their entirety, and instead I support Hemiauchenia's having added "Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability" to RS/P, perhaps adding something like "especially for promotional news articles." FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Since the PROMO issues seem to be localized particularly to biographies, perhaps we could have guidance similar to what we use at NCORP that calls for heightened Nigerian source scrutiny re: independence when it comes to BLPs. Deprecating them just for BLPs might also be an option. JoelleJay (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes banning falsehoods is a sacrifice I am willing to make, be they from White people black people, or yellow people. As I said about Fiox and the Daily Myth, if you do not want to be accused of telling lies, there is a simpler solution, do not tell them. This is my last response here with a firm not reliable. Prove me wrong and I will change my mind, but it has to be proof and not emotive appeals to (so-called) fairness. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

or yellow people
Uhhh.... JoelleJay (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've gone ahead and created a new section covering Nigerian news organisations at RSP Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Nigerian_news_organisations. It's a bit stubby at the moment but it's at least a start. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but this is by Nigerian editors who ranking Nigerian sources relative to each other. This is different from the standards that non-Nigerian Wikipedia editors have for sources. There are serious issues with quality of Nigerian media across the board, as elaborated on in this article: [122]. It's definitely useful to tell the relative quality of Nigerian sources though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

From direct experience, I have not observed Nigerian editors to be somehow inferior to non-Nigerian editors. They’ve been especially insightful in the several Nigeria-related AfDs I’ve participated in. I invite you to go through the more experienced Nigerian editors’ edit histories and see for yourself. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that their judgment is poor or that Nigerian editors are inferior in any way, but that there are issues with Nigerian press across the board, such as low press freedom that is very different from say, news sources in Western Europe and North America, which should be kept in mind with evaluating their content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I encourage you to engage with folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria as you develop guidance on Nigerian media. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

“Settings”

إعدادات التطبيق)؛ “Manual map rotation” 213.139.53.250 (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I think you're lost, this page is for discussing the reliability of sources used to reference Wikipedia articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Times of Israel blogs

The current RSP description for Times of Israel says In the 2024 RfC, there was consensus that The Times of Israel is generally reliable, although potentially biased in certain areas. Blog posts are usable in the same way any recognized expert's blog posts are used per WP:BLOGS. Blogs were only minorly discussed in the RfC, so I though it would be worth revisiting this issue specifically. Several people in the discussion said that Times of Israel blogs lack pre-publication editorial oversight from ToI itself, which would make them self-published sources and unusable for BLPs per WP:BLPSPS, and arguably unreliable similar to WP:FORBESCON. If accurate, this should be more explicitly mentioned in the RSP entry, but I wanted to get more input here before potentially making that change. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Isn't WP:FORBESCON just needed because lack of editorial oversight isn't immediately apparent? With blogs this should be obvious due to "blogs" in name. Also, with your reasoning, we should add the blog sections of all other outlets too -- is it really worth the effort? NicolausPrime (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Do most newspapers have extensive blog networks that lack editorial oversight? In my experience this is generally not the case. blogs.timesofisrael.com   shows that ToI blogs have been cited over 600 times on Wikipedia, so this isn't some technical nitpick about a minor aspect of Wikipedia's usage of ToI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed and wouldn't this already be covered by WP:NEWSBLOG? - Amigao (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Not quite. It doesn't appear that TOI have editorial control over the blogs, which would make them self-published. Per WP:SPS self-published sources can't be used in WP:BLPs. NEWSBLOG doesn't have that restriction. Either way I would be against duplicating policy into RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I just think that Blog posts are usable in the same way any recognized expert's blog posts are used per WP:BLOGS is an inadequate summary, and makes it seem like ToI blogs are generally usable when they are actually not, especially for BLPS where they shouldn't be used at all. I think something like Blog posts lack editorial oversight and should not be used for claims about living people. would be a much better second sentence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLOGS is just another shortcut for the self-published section of V, and that contains Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. My point is it shouldn't be necessary to say that in RSP, as policy overrides anything in the RSP anyway. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, okay. Can we change to, Times of Israel blogs lack editorial oversight, and should be used following the guidance at WP:BLOGS? As it should be obvious, the current RSP entry is also repeating part of the WP:BLOGS guideline. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to that, and I think that would still be in keeping with the RFC close. Might be worthwhile to see if the closer agrees. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging the closer @Valereee for their view. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, @Hemiauchenia. Yes, what I was seeing the discussion was rough consensus (among those commenting on the blogs) was that TOI blogs, like any other blog, are usable in the way other blogs are usable: If by a recognized expert, generally usable with attribution. If not, generally not usable. Any suggestions on how to improve the wording to make that clear? Valereee (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Do we have proof they lack editorial oversight? Relative to other newspapers with similar features? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Their terms of use says: Please note that the posts on The Blogs are contributed by third parties. The opinions, facts and any media content in them are presented solely by the authors, and neither The Times of Israel nor its partners assume any responsibility for them. Please contact us in case of abuse. , which strongly implies to me that they don't have editorial control. It also seems unlikely that they would have published the recent controversial blog post saying that Israel needs "Lebensraum" [123] if they required pre-publication approval for each blog post. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. Yeah, that is an issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This kind of legalese is written by lawyers trying to preemptively position themselves for hypothetical lawsuits; legalistic disclaimers should not be read as actual descriptions of editorial policy. (This doesn’t mean the statement is false, just that it is not good evidence one way or the other.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That may be true otherwise, but a key part of journalistic integrity is not doing that and taking full accountability for what they print. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy: who may have more insight on ToI's level of editorial control (or lack thereof) over the blogs. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Basically the same as what you’ve already said, they explicitly disclaimed any editorial control, and that makes it normal self published blog level rather than NEWSBLOG level. nableezy - 13:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• News blog submissions should be viewed as OPINION journalism… they are reliable for verifying the (in-text attributed) opinion of the author, and not for statements of fact in wikivoice. Whether the opinion should be mentioned in a specific article (or at all) is a function of DUE weight, and should be based on the reputation of the author more than the reputation of the outlet publishing it. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  +1. Selfstudier (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there was a dispute that the TOI blogs are self published. Just make the change and see if it gets reverted. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I made the change [124], but it's not in the current version (not sure whether I got reverted or this was a side effect of breaking up RSP into several behind the scenes subpages) Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it was the latter. I've made the change again (with somewhat different wording) [125]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Cilisos

Is Cilisos reliable? Cilisos said in an article that Ling Liong Sik was "acting Prime Minister of Malaysia" during the 1988 Malaysian constitutional crisis, but Malaysiakini stated the opposite. KjjjKjjj (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Although Cilisos say he was acting prime minister, they then go onto say that this was never official. Ling was just the next in line after the collapse of UMNO. Maybe different wording would be better, that Ling chaired a cabinet meeting but was never official made prime minister.

Either way something from over thirty years ago like the Malaysian constitutional crisis, should really be sources to history books and not news media. I would suggest finding better sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Thanks for your suggestion on the issue. However, the main question is if Cilisos is a reliable source to reference on Wikipedia. KjjjKjjj (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Vice Media (again)

https://www.vice.com/en/article/its-disgusting-viral-overdose-videos-are-hurting-people-at-their-lowest-moments/

I was looking to add this to the article on Tyler Oliveira. Using it to support the fact that Oliveira responded to criticism is probably fine, but I'm looking at the claim that "there’s no evidence that suggests publicly shaming people is a useful antidote to drug addiction and in fact it can be counter-productive at getting people to seek help." Would it be fine to add something like "Vice News argued that Oliveira's video was counterproductive in encouraging drug users to seek help"? Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

What is or is not effective at curing addiction sounds like a medical claim, I could be wrong so I've left a notification at WT:MEDRS#Discussion at RSN that may include a medical claim.

Medical claims are held to a higher standard than most others, see WP:MEDRS for details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thats a tricky one... I think we can say "Vice News argued that Oliveira's video was counterproductive in encouraging drug users to seek help" without running into a MEDRS wall, but I don't think we can go much further. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want to make the claim that shame is not an effective treatment, then you will want to find a better source. This should be easy to do, as it is both a true statement and widely repeated in the treatment communities (where it is mostly aimed at family members and healthcare providers, rather than at addicted individuals).

However, I'm not sure that any of this matters. A typical work of journalism on this subject isn't trying to tell the individual in the film how the journalist feels about their behavior. It's usually trying to educate unrelated people. Therefore the message is usually less like "you, personally, are a terrible excuse for a human" and more like "this terrible public health problem needs serious attention and taxpayer funding". In other words, I think that a statement about the efficacy of shame as a treatment modality would be off-topic for this article.

@Based5290, if you are working on this article, I'm finding it very confusing. For example:

• A British Columbia representative and interviewee, Elenore Sturko, alleged that she was filmed without her consent and labeled the video "inaccurate and exploitative" – Was the legislator the addict? Do Canadian legislators expect to be able to refuse being filmed while interviewed by journalists? Is her comment about "inaccurate and exploitative" about how it represents her, or is this an overall judgment on the whole thing?
• A man was filmed while suffering from a drug overdose without his consent, which a harm reduction and recovery expert called disgusting. – Ah, so she's not the addict who got filmed. Some unnamed man is.
• Several harm-reduction advocates criticized a portion of the video filmed by YouTuber and homeless service provider Kevin Dahlgren, purportedly in an overdose prevention site, which they said was actually a homeless shelter. – Did he film the man with the drug overdose? Did the overdose happen in this place? Or is this a different criticism?
• Prior to the publication of the video, Dahlgren was charged by the district attorney of Multnomah County, Oregon for theft, identity theft, and "misuse of his official position as a homeless services specialist". – Is this relevant? Was filming the "misuse of his official position"? Had he been charged at the time the filming was done? Or is this a WP:COAT that we're 'hanging' on this article, since he's a non-notable person who hasn't been convicted, and there's no other way to shame this innocent-until-proven-guilty BLP in Wikipedia if we don't violate WP:BLPCRIME and stick the accusation in this article?

I have the same feelings of confusion about the other paragraphs in this section. I want something more straightforward: "Oliviera made a film. It has been criticized for being inaccurate [e.g., calling a homeless shelter an overdose prevention site], for filming two people without their consent [i.e., the politician and the overdosing man], and for letting a person who has been accused of crimes use a camera." Obviously you wouldn't use that exact wording, but this lays out the criticisms without being a laundry list of who said what when. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

What to do with citations without sources?

Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney has been edited by User:Religião, Política e Futebol (who has warnings about not using sources) so that many citations are now just statements, eg 21 " 3 November 1511 - Knowledge of João Escorcio because he appears to be in debt to the king of 8 thousand reais, of 4 mounds of wheat that he received from the tenant of the tithes of the islands". Doug Weller talk 09:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That appears to be a piece of original research, not a citation, so it should be removed from the article and a {{Citation needed}} tag added if appropriate. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Those elements come from the Chancellery documents, which are public records. Religião, Política e Futebol (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If it ain't got a source, it ain't a cite, so remove it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It has a source, a published book, it simply needs to add inline citations. Religião, Política e Futebol (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is what a cite is, an inline citation to a published work (who wrote it, who published it, when, and what page number) to allow verification. If it does not have those things, it is not a valid cite, and so should be removed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You are providing what are effectively footnotes as citations, and these are effectively unsourced. You cannot expect people to verify or accept what you are claiming without citation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Religião, You still need to cite the documents you are using. Also, such documents are Primary sources, and so are of very limited use. You are essentially conducting Original Research (and Wikipedia is not the place to do that - see: WP:No original research.) Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

See latest edit.[126]. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I've managed to find a reliable source discussing the claim [127]. It suggests that the connection to Henry I Sinclair is unconfirmed. I really don't think 19th century genealogical sources are reliable for this topic, and I would support removal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added a brief section back [128]. Anymore I think would be a WP:COATRACK to the topic of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

GameSpot (regarding non-gaming articles)

So after the GameFAQs debacle I went back to WP:RSPSS and WP:VG/RS and took another look at both. It was then that I realized that GameSpot's articles pertaining to non-gaming-related subjects don't appear to have been discussed - or at least they haven't been discussed in a good while.

Since at least 2017 (or maybe earlier than that idk) GameSpot has started publishing articles about film and television works that have nothing to do with video games, in the same vein as IGN (which has already been determined to be generally reliable for these two subjects). Have these articles been discussed before? And if so, when was the last time they were? 100.7.34.111 (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have an issue with anything specific that GameSpot is being used to reference? I'm not sure why you describe the GameFAQs discussion as a debacle, or what it has to do with GameSpot, but please be more specific with your concerns. --Onorem (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no concerns. I brought up the GameFAQs discussion in order to lead into my overall point, and one need only look at said discussion to understand why I called it a "debacle." 100.7.34.111 (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If you have no concerns, why is this here? You didn't get your way in an unrelated discussion. What action would you like to see regarding this discussion? --Onorem (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not exactly as if they talked about both videogames and quantum mechanics. Growing from a specialized videogame page into a page with more varied types of popular culture does not seem a change that should change its reliability. Cambalachero (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Jeff Sneider / The InSneider

Used for many claims throughout pages for CBM movies, such as The Fantastic Four: First Steps, Superman (2025 film), Kraven the Hunter (film), and Peter Parker (The Amazing Spider-Man film series), including those which are otherwise unverifiable like Victor von Doom appearing in the first or that Spider-Man was supposed to appear in Madame Web (film) but was cut.

I really do not see why his claims is so widely allowed and accepted as fact, even though he is undoubtedly more reliable than random blogs or posts on Twitter he's still a journalist making claims without evidence. I would like to establish here definitively if we continue to site theinsneider.com as a source, as we currently do in many articles. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I did a Google News search and when other outlets report his stuff it is described as a rumour or "reportedly". He is also described as a "scooper". I don't think most of that should be used on Wikipedia because of NOTNEWS. Rumours about media that haven't been released yet aren't even news yet. Does he say that he got his info from a source? Then it should be attributed to that source. It also looks like a SPS. So everything sourced to him should be attributed, but even then it probably shouldn't be used. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources covering Mr. Beat

See also: Wikipedia:Source assessment/Mr. Beat

Which of the following sources (cited in Draft:Matt Beat) could be reliable enough to contribute towards GNG?

• Laughing Squid
• The Pitch
• Lawrence Journal-World
• The Lawrence Times
• FOX4KC
• Tonganoxie Mirror

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

All the local journalism sources are reliable but don't help much with notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This is light and primarily local coverage (one of these is primary) that I think fall within the realm of WP:ROUTINE. Beat isn't seen as a media personality, but rather as just a high school teacher, and by that metric there are so many others in need of articles. As much as I and numerous others have learned from his videos, he really isn't important as far as the world is concerned. Departure– (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I have to say I've seen much worse articles on youtubers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)