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

Additional notes:

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

Start a new discussion

---

RfC OurCampaigns

Currently, OurCampaigns is listed as an unreliable source. Should it also be deprecated or even blacklisted to prevent its continued use and allow for mass removal? Wowzers122 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There are currently nearly 4,000 instances of it being cited as a source on Wikipedia, not including map files that list it as their source in the description. The site's FAQ says:

OurCampaigns is an internet community formed in 2002 to discuss politics and elections. It is a collaborative website which allows users to post messages and links, earn points by predicting the outcomes of future elections, and enter historical election information. The website is built by the members as they enter site content.

When you create an account, you are able to post messages. With good solid participation in this area, the website owner (Randy) or others with high enough access may increase your access to more functions of site creation. This will enable you to help make the website more comprehensive and useful for other people who are interested in politics. This is the true power of the website.

OurCampaigns (OC) is also a web community. The users become a small e-family, which means that family dynamics come into play in the discussions. Be quick to forgive, slow to take offense, and quick to admit an error. Most of all, enjoy your time at OC!

Previous discussions:

• Jan 2009: Post suggesting it be removed from all articles
• Sep 2010: "looks like an open Wiki"
• July 2014: points to request for blacklist, declined because "site is dead"
• Dec 2017: brief discussion
• May 2020: discussion that leans toward reliable for election results, but some reservations stated
• Feb 2021: RfC that elapsed; consensus seems to indicate generally unreliable, disagreement over blacklisting; archived without closure
• April 2021: RfC that put OurCampaigns on WP:RSPS as "generally unreliable"

To me, it should be blacklisted. I used to be okay with its inclusion in articles, even adding it to articles myself, as there's not many sources for older elections (actually there is and I'll get to that) and they provide data sources for most of their pages. Recently, I was gifted United States Congressional elections, 1788-1997: the official results of the elections of the 1st through 105th Congresses by a fellow wikipedian, which I have started replacing OurCampaigns with since its actually reliable. The first article I've done this with is the 1830–31 United States House of Representatives elections (which cut it down by 13,000+ bytes, yippe). To my disappointment, the book doesn’t include county returns, which was shocking because most OurCampaigns pages cite that book as their only source, yet also include a county map. For example, the page for the IL At-Large election cites only that book as its source but somehow also has a map. Where did they get that information? For all I know, it could've been completely madeup.

In addition to its maps lacking any source, OurCampaigns frequently gets information wrong. In some cases, it’s a minor discrepancy, with numbers being slightly off, but in others, it's egregious. Again, using the IL At-Large page as an example, there are two more candidates listed than are reported in the source: "James Dunkin" and "Write-In Nonpartisan." Where they come from? They're not in the source provided.

Another egregious example is with the 13 trials for MA Essex North. In the first trial, the book lists Caleb Cushing as running as an independent against the National Republican candidate, before becoming the National Republican candidate in the later trials (the page again has the book as its only source and this time doesn't even incldude a page number. It's page 97 for the first trial and then page 100 for the other 12.) And on the MA Bristol page for the first trial, the page gives Russel Freeman 48%, when he is only given 42% in the book.

My final example for its blacklisting is a now-blocked (thankfully) IP editor that was going around replacing reliable sources with OurCampaign and Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections (who I will get to in a separate discussion for another time) sources. Specifically, I'd like to mention this edit to the 1864 United States presidential election in Kansas where Cheeseborough is shown as a separate candidate for president from the two candidates, like on the OurCampaigns and Atlas sources, even though he was only a candidate for the electoral college on the National Union ticket.

There's really no reason to use this source. If an editor needs information for an election article, they should seek out reliable sources, maybe even those cited by OurCampaigns. For election data, I recommend A New Nation Votes, a website created by Phil Lampi and run by the American Antiquarian Society, for any election before 1826 (it includes county returns). For any election from 1838-1914, the Tribune almanac and political register (it includes county returns). The varius Congressional Quarterly's Guide to US elections such as the ones on archive.org (whenever they get it working again). For any gubernatorial election, Dubin's US Gubernatorial Elections, 1776-1860 (also on archive.org) (it includes county returns). I have access to Dubin's US Gubernatorial Elections, 1861-1911, United States Presidential Elections, 1788-1860, along with US Congressional Elections, 1788-1997, and I know someone with Party Affiliations in the State Legislatures: A Year by Year Summary, 1796-2006, most of which include county returns and that I can send you pages of through discord. Wowzers122 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blacklisting or deprecation seems overkill. It's already on WP:RSPS as generally-unreliable. It's a user-generated source, just like Wikipedia, IMDB, Discogs, etc. It's easily available online, and lazy amateur Wikipedians are of course more likely to cite freely available user-generated sites than a history book by some forgotten scholar. Replace with better sources when possible. But unless you personally have a grudge with the site, I see no reason for further escalation. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • +1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have a grudge against websites that have consistently provided incorrect information, something OurCampaigns has done multiple times beyond the examples given here, including reporting incorrect numbers, falsifying candidacies, and including unsourced maps. I don't believe we should allow people to continually add potentially incorrect information to articles and reward their laziness. I understand that most editors don't have access to non-online sources, which is why I am willing to share mine and have provided links to online freely available election data from archives like the Internet Archive, as well as dedicated, professionally run sites like A New Nation Votes and Ballotpedia. Wowzers122 (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Are people actively adding them to articles still? if so, I suppose adding it to the edit filter might be appropriate. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, It should be blocked. If it is't then people will keep using it, instead of other sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I would support deprecation. I have encountered plenty of inaccurate information on OurCampaigns in the past, including outright fictional candidates and fake sources. It has the same problem many other UGC sites have, which is a serious lack of quality controls and an ease for vandalism, especially in lesser-known races. Deprecation solves this problem and prevents it from spreading and we've historically deprecated other UCG sources with a higher likelihood for having false information. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 22:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC Jerusalem Post

The reliability of the Jerusalem Post is:

Option 1: Generally reliable

Option 2: Additional considerations

Option 3: Generally unreliable

Option 4: Deprecate

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

Survey (Jerusalem Post)

• Option 4: the Jerusalem Post's coverage is extremely biased and is unfortunately extensively used throughout Wikipedia articles, to cite a few examples on these biases:

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

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

That's what is being referred to as RFCBEFORE. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

So do we need another so soon? We can't keep discussing this every month or so. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 Like nearly every other source......Options 1, 3 & 4 represent faulty over-generalizations. North8000 (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Option #1Under the current Wikipedia context Option #1 is the best match. My original Option #2 choice is for after we reconfigure to recognize that every source is option #2. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. Bias isn't unreliability. Nothing has been presented that shows any other RS that question the Jerusalem Post. Retractions are good actually. Andre🚐 19:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Andre; also per Slater, wasn't there just an RfC about this? Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 I would need stronger stuff than this to think otherwise. Cambalachero (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4, as they still have clearly false statements on Oct 7 "decapitation babies" still online, after they have been debunked for over a year, Huldra (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  You previously advocated that the Electronic Intifada shouldn't be deprecated because it's similar to the Jerusalem Post,[6] but now that the analogy isn't beneficial you say the Jerusalem Post should be deprecated.

  Specifically, you said that for the Tehran Times or Jerusalem Post: some areas you can presume them to be correct, others not. What changed that made you think the Jerusalem Post should be banned in virtually all circumstances, instead of just an Option 2? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  but now that the analogy isn't beneficial you say the Jerusalem Post should be deprecated. If EI and JP are indeed comparable, the community consensus that EI is GUNREL should presumably apply to JP. I'm not aware of anything on EI as egregiously misleading and uncorrected as reports of decapitated babies, so I see no hypocrisy in Huldra's stance.

  However, I have used JP in my editing and made what I hope have been valuable contributions using it, so I would be more inclined to argue that both are Option 2 (or, to be consistent, that both are Option 3) and that particular details reported by either source might be more unreliable on a case-by-case basis. To me, stories like the beheaded babies are less a black mark on any particular source and moreso an indication that, particularly in instances where systemic bias is at play, we ought to think of even the most reliable sources differently, along the lines of @North8000's comment. Also a reminder that sources regarded as perennially unreliable like EI and The Grayzone can be a voice of reason in certain contexts where the mainstream media isn't doing its job. Unbandito (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't believe they are comparable. EI has promoted the conspiracy theory that most civilians that died on October 7th were killed by Israel. [7] But the person I'm originally replying to would have a much stronger point if they explained how the standards applied to EI can also apply to the Jerusalem Post. Right now, I see a proposal to deprecate based on a single story. That's not a standard that has been applied to any other publication onwiki.

  With respect to your position, what type of additional considerations would you recommend to editors using the Jerusalem Post?

  I agree with both your and North8000's position that all sources need to be considered in context. But in the current Wikipedia climate, Option 2 means "marginally reliable" or "additional considerations". If the only considerations are the same as those that would be applied to a generally reliable source, then Option 1 is the correct choice. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  "EI has promoted the conspiracy theory that most civilians that died on October 7th were killed by Israel." If you read the article, you will find that there is no link to EI for that statement. This, because EI has never said that, Huldra (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Given the context of the beheaded babies story and the example you bring up, I would say that JP and EI should be treated with special caution when making extraordinary claims that cut in the same direction as their bias, as they’ve demonstrated a willingness to drop their journalistic standards in the extraordinary circumstances of the 7 October attacks.

  However, I do see a difference between these two missteps. Following the publication of that WaPo article, use of the Hannibal Directive on 7 October has been confirmed by Al Jazeera and Haaretz reporting, lending some credence to EI’s claims. I would not use EI to justify putting the claim that most of the Israelis killed were killed by friendly fire, but they are correct to say that significant aspects of the attack remain unexplained in the absence of an independent investigation, which Israel has prevented. The position that EI’s claims are a conspiracy theory is itself a partisan claim for which there is a shrinking body of evidence. JP’s claims of beheaded babies on the other hand have been thoroughly debunked and will almost certainly stay that way. If anything, JP’s error is more egregious. EI’s position may yet be proven true or debunked by future evidence. Unbandito (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  OK. While I don't agree with most of your comment, I agree that the Jerusalem Post should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims in the direction of its bias. That's my understanding of WP:GREL and the source can still be added to RSP as generally reliable with such a note about what its biases are. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t necessarily disagree with that, though I wouldn’t rank JP as option 1 given the reasons others have provided here related to their unwillingness to issue corrections and their lying about verifying information they reported. I think JP should be regarded as one of many sources that we triangulate with others to reach the closest approximation of the truth. Consequently, I think any positive ranking of JP would warrant a re-evaluation of other partisan sources of the opposite persuasion (like EI) to ensure they are being assessed consistently. Unbandito (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Huh? EI is GUNREL. EI is not the equal and opposite of JPost. Andre🚐 20:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  That’s a circular argument. The previous designation of EI is not itself evidence that the designation is accurate. I’m suggesting that the evidence brought forth here about JP should cause us to reassess EI. If JP is not considered GUNREL, EI probably shouldn’t be. I’m going to leave it at that to avoid going further off topic. Unbandito (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think your argument conflates bias with reliability. EI should and is not reliable for facts, and is also biased. JPost is generally reliable for facts, and also has a bias. Andre🚐 22:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  You're welcome to do so, if you believe whatever consensus is reached at this discussion is contradictory to the previous one. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 - it's a cut below Times of Israel and Haaretz, several cuts above Arutz Sheva and i24 for example, and if it is the only source for some claim then asking for more or better sources is totally reasonable imo. But still a mostly reliable source and citeable as such. nableezy - 22:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• I glanced over a couple of JP articles while doing research for #IDF claims Gaza reporters are terrorists; reporters and their employer say no and was not impressed by its quality; it seemed to be parroting the government position without qualification or critical thinking. But I dislike how results from discussions like this are often used to purge sources from articles in a manner similarly lacking critical thinking, so I'll refrain from voting. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Option 1. The fourth Jewish source at RSN in recent memory. I'll repeat that it's bizarre that when the previous RfC on an Israeli or Jewish source closes, a new one quickly begins. Hezbollah runs Lebanon and no other publication was previously tricked by a deepfake student. The decapitated babies story is false but was widely picked up by the Western media at the time. As OP said about an Arab source: All medias have biases, but that doesn't necessarily affect general reliability, unless it has been consistently false or misleading; Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources do not have religions so there is no such thing as a "Jewish source." This is a bizzare framing of events that shifts the focus away from the Jerusalem Post's misinformation.

Yes, as I previously mentioned, biases do not affect reliability; but as demonstrated above, the Jerusalem Post is both biased and unreliable. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If editors are only banning sources aligned with one viewpoint, this can skew the POV of entire topic areas. This occurs at RSN because we examine sources in isolation. I'm framing the discussion in this way because only sources with a Jewish or Zionist or pro-Israel viewpoint are being declared unreliable in recent months and I believe that is negatively affecting the Israel and Palestine topic area.

Specifically, you haven't shown the Jerusalem Post is "consistently false". You've shown they were fooled by deepfake technology in 2020 when deepfakes were new. You've shown they reported on a decapitated babies story most Western media outlets also reported on. You've also shown they retract false stories. Finally, your biggest point is that they call the Lebanese Health Ministry "Hezbollah-run" when the government of Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah, and many hospitals in Southern Lebanon are run by Hezbollah social services.[8]

In this topic area, where most media sources blamed Israel for bombing Al-Ahli Arab Hospital and then immediately had to retract, some level of mistakes are tolerable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The government of Lebanon is not controlled by Hezbollah, they are a part of a coalition government and members of that party hold the ministries of public works and labor. The public health ministry is headed by a member of the Future Movement, a Sunni party, not Hezbollah. Your claim about "only sources with a Jewish or Zionist or pro-Israel viewpoint are being declared unreliable in recent months" ignores a number of sources that have been deemed unreliable that are not any of those things, and the conflation of Jewish and Zionist if made by a non-Zionist would draw outrage for antisemitism. But Al Mayadeen was deprecated, Anadolu Agency GUNREL, CounterPunch GUNREL, The Cradle deprecated, The Electronic Intifada GUNREL, The Grayzone deprecated, Mondoweiss other considerations (you opened that arguing for deprecation), Press TV deprecated. The claim that "Jewish sources" are being targeted is absurd. If anything, your history in these discussions show that you consistently oppose sources that are not pro-Zionist, and repeatedly attempt to deflect in discussions about sources that are pro-Zionist by claiming it is an attack on "Jewish sources". It be great if that stopped. nableezy - 15:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy: You said yourself Hezbollah is part of the government. They also have an effective veto power in Lebanese politics and have more power than you acknowledge, including providing basic services in areas Israel is bombing. [9] The Jerusalem Post is being hyperbolically biased in a way that is impossible to cite on Wikipedia. We should apply the same standard we apply to all sources. If Mondoweiss is going to be Option 2, I can live with that so long as the standards are consistently applied.

Specifically, the standard for deprecation we've developed as Wikipedia editors that we should focus on how a source is used in articles. In the cases of Mondoweiss, I advocated for deprecation and was proven wrong because there wasn't the track record of demonstrable harm that deprecation would prevent, as well as a focus on opinion pieces. The most I could show was that it promoted October 7th denialism. The Jerusalem Post has not met that standard because "Hezbollah-run health ministry" is arguably true and isn't citable onwiki.

The reason why I mention the Jerusalem Post is both Jewish and Zionist is that it regularly covers Jewish issues outside of Israel in the diaspora section.

None of the double standard criticism applies to you. I largely agree with your reasoning that the Jerusalem Post is worse than the Times of Israel/Haaretz (those are the best Israeli newspapers). I disagree mainly because WP:MREL doesn't mean "mostly reliable source", it means marginally reliable. Without clear delineation of when it is reliable/unreliable, editors will try to mass-remove the Jerusalem Post from articles if they think it's being used in an inappropriate context (like BLPs for Mondoweiss). A WP:GREL outcome would not mean you're obligated to accept it for all statements of fact, but that it's "mostly reliable" as you've said.

What I'm pointing out is since April, we've had RfCs on the ADL+Jewish Chronicle+Jerusalem Post, and there are editors that take different positions on the Jerusalem Post in different discussions.

I would oppose the introduction of "Hezbollah-run health ministry" to articles especially given the precedent set at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier—it's technically true but doesn't have much context. That being said, nobody has seriously proposed to use that qualifier and I don't see how biased language makes the Jerusalem Post unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it is technically not true, it is not arguably true in any way. Hezbollah does not run the health ministry in Lebanon, full stop. I didnt vote to deprecate. I only objected to your repeated claims of targeting "Jewish sources" which is demonstrably untrue. And I think that diversion is both untrue and, to be honest, outrageous in that it implicitly claims a racist motivation in questioning any of these sources reliability. If somebody is attacking a source because it is a "Jewish source" that should be block worthy. But as far as I can tell nobody is, making the accusation itself what is block worthy. nableezy - 17:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It's possible to have unconscious bias and that is not a blockworthy offence. Arguing that there is systemic bias in our treatment of sources is not an accusation of deliberately racist motivations on the part of individual editors. It is effectively impossible to counter systemic bias if I am not allowed to acknowledge its existence.

What I originally said still stands: the pattern of examining sources in isolation at WP:RSN is causing systemic bias issues because we cannot determine if we are treating sources differently depending on their affiliation.

Examining sources by contextualizing them with other sources will more effectively evaluate the reliability of the Jerusalem Post by reducing the impact of bias.

In this case, I contrasted with Al-Jazeera and asked whether the Jerusalem Post has met the consistently false or misleading standard applied there. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing either; Haaretz is an Israeli Jewish-owned RS publication that is highly critical of Israel, even critical of the Jerusalem Post, so this argument does not hold to scrutiny. Being "pro-Israel" is not opposed to being critical of Israel; on the contrary, many pro-Israel sources are highly critical of Israel's policies because they care about Israel. As for the decapitated babies debunked claim, the difference is that unlike the Jerusalem Post, western media did not claim to see evidence for this in their reporting. As for the claim about ministry being Hezbollah-run, this is an extraordinary claim and a personal opinion that is not supported by any reliable source. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

And the Jerusalem Post is highly critical of Haaretz[10], a publication whose owner said Israel imposes apartheid, that Hamas is full of freedom fighters, and that Israel should be sanctioned to bring about a Palestinian state. Haaretz is not a replacement for the Jerusalem Post, which is the main right-wing newspaper in Israel. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Great, then clearly, conflicting editorial policies and opinions of newspapers have nothing to do with religion nor ethnicity, so we can move on from that argument. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 Seems like a reliable source and was recently RFC'd/discussed. No source is ever perfect and so all things considered, this is reasonable. Chess makes a good point that after a failed RFC against similar sources another pops up. Seems like agenda driven basis to depreciate such sources at any cost. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 per Nableezy and North8000. All sources on this topic are problematic and should be used with caution and this is somewhere below the strongest sources but nowhere near the worst usable sources, so I would treat it similarly to Palestine Chronicle (maybe a little better given it does more of its own reporting). Re the specific charges, "Hezbollah-run" is not that big a deal; the babies story is problematic but we don't know the full truth; the doll story shows reason for caution but was corrected; the deepfake story is trivial (several publications were similarly taken in and JP removed it). We need to be consistent in our treatment of I/P sources, and exercise skepticism and triangulation with all of them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I just want to say about "the doll story" that I think it shows more than just a reason to be cautious, as what they said about faulty sourcing for their reason for retracting does not stand up. The only source in the story was an unverified tweet claiming it was a doll. That to me shows a willingness to promote unverified material as propaganda. This was not the case of an actual source giving the JPost wrong information, this was them having such a low standard that some guy with 1100 twitter followers was treated as an authoritative source to make outlandish claims and present them as fact. Yes they took it down after it was widely mocked for putting out a false story, with proof of the lie having been offered by the photojournalist who had taken the photo. I simply do not trust them to have verified claims that other stronger sources have not, which is what pushes it in to option 2 territory for me. nableezy - 19:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 generally and 2 for AI/IP topic area there is a fair bit of nationalistic tub thumping/the idea that every single Palestinian is a terrorist for this source so the AI/IP stuff should be treated with some caution but otherwise I would give the benefit of the doubt.Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have sources to back up the claim that the Jerusalem Post promoted the idea that every single Palestinian is a terrorist? This is unsubstantiated at the moment. And why would publishing an opinion along those lines make the Jerusalem Post less reliable?

  For context, the WP:GREL Al-Jazeera has published opinion pieces directly saying "All Zionist roads lead to genocide".[11] Should Al-Jazeera also be WP:MREL on Israel and Palestine?

  Al-Jazeera's opinion editors have described Zionism, the belief that Israel should exist, as an inherently genocidal ideology. This is similar to describing the Palestinian identity as inherently terroristic.

  From my understanding after I was shot down at the Mondoweiss RfC, extreme opinions aren't what makes a source unreliable. Mondoweiss being unable to separate advocacy from news is what contributed to its WP:MREL status. Likewise, Al-Jazeera is WP:GREL because it can separate advocacy pieces into an opinion section.

  My understanding is that the Jerusalem Post would have to consistently perform advocacy in its actual news for its WP:POV to negatively affect its reliability. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Don't see what AJ or Mondoweiss have to do with the JP. https://www.jpost.com/tags/palestinian-terrorism, horses mouth. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Declaring Israeli sources unreliable on Israel or Palestine based on standards Arab sources aren't held to will bias the topic area.

  Tagging articles as "Palestinian terrorism" is just pointing out that some acts of terrorism are committed by terrorism. I'm also unsure how an article tag would be cited beyond calling specific act of terrorism Palestinian. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Declaring Israeli sources unreliable on Israel or Palestine based on standards Arab sources aren't held to will bias the topic area. Instead of repeating this as if that will somehow make the accusation more credible (it doesn't, its just annoying), make your case in an appropriate place (which isn't in this discussion).

  When Israel was doing its nearly 2 year long so called operation breakwater, and arresting Palestinians in the WB every night, JP would report it next day as "x Palestinian terrorists arrested" whether they were or were not terrorists. Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  You haven't provided any links to specific stories falsely claiming that a Palestinian is a terrorist. That was my original ask, and if you can't provide evidence there's no use pressing further.

  Likewise, if you're not going to refute the double standard, I don't see the point of repeating myself. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  You are repeating yourself. Selfstudier (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's worth discouraging reproduction of JP's stylistic bias, particularly the labelling of people as terrorists, as a special consideration on its reliability. Unbandito (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  I would support this. The term "terrorist" should be substantiated by other sources (as a general rule). Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 generally, 2 for AI/IP, same reasoning as SelfStudier honestly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, per Chess. To respond to Makeandtoss, being Jewish is not solely about religion, it’s just one aspect of Jewish identity, and most Jews are secular and see their Jewishness as ethnicity/nationality/culture. I also agree that there has been a recent surge in attempts to discredit Jewish sources without real evidence, which is really troubling. HaOfa (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 I tend to evaluate depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except Option 2 to say that you cannot skip the context of what article content is involved. I would lean strongly towards RS from the goodnesses of it being a well-established reputable outfit with local expertise and that they have made retractions and corrections when in error - and basically everyone makes an error sometime so the handling is important - and that WP has generally regarded it as a RS to use in prior RSN. I would tend to view it as RS with POV to use in the context of the current hot war, but then I think that *all* sources should be taken as POV in the context of the current hot war. (London Times, Sydney Morning Herald, The Globe and Mail ... *all* sources.) Sort of what SelfStudier said. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Andrevan and Chess. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - agree that all four are issues, but JPost is one of the oldest and largest Israeli newspapers, and we're lacking an argument for why this is qualitatively or quantitatively worse than incidents at any other major publication. The fake persona seems less severe than fake stories, which many reputable publications have had at some point - see e.g. Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke, Johann Hari. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, though I could maybe be convinced toward 2 if a stronger case is presented. The decapitated babies story was a massive whiff, but I haven’t seen a pattern of outright falsified reporting otherwise. JPost certainly has a right-wing/nationalist perspective, which makes me rather uncomfortable, but as established in WP policy, bias is (unfortunately, in my view) not unreliability. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Wholesale opposed to 3/4, however. In both this topic area and others, I’ve seen sources currently marked GREL/MREL get away with far worse than what the opener notes - unless a stronger case is made, deprecation is beyond extreme here. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Important to note that unlike other news sources that reported on the decapitated babies claim, the Jerusalem Post was unique in saying that it had verified the evidence itself, so this is a major red flag and a different story. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Again, while awful, one severely problematic piece does not amount to the pattern of lies and/or inaccuracies required for outright GUNREL/deprecation - if it did, most of the sources we use on this site would be in that grouping. The rest of the case you’ve made effectively boils down to bias and/or items they ultimately retracted. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2/3 for Israel-Palestine, Option 1 in general. - As others have noted the Jerusalem Post is clearly biased, but I don't think that necessarily means it's unreliable. Outside of the Israel-Palestine area it may well be generally reliable. The problem is that it veers away from mere bias into making incredibly inflammatory false claims that are widely shared and never corrected. The case of "Photos of babies being burnt, decapitated confirmed" stands out in particular. They achieved almost 16 million views with this tweet and never retracted it. The article continues to be cited, sometimes by people with far-reaching influence. Detailed investigations by Haaretz, LeMonde and others continue to show that the claims the Jerusalem Post made were false, but as I write this JP has yet to retract or correct the story.
  
  The other case was the claim about a Palestinian baby who was killed being a doll. An incredibly inflammatory claim, widespread reach, continuing to be repeated and adding to the Pallywood myth. The BBC and others showed this to be false. The JP did eventually retract the story, however the author of the piece Danielle Greyman-Kennard continues to work for them to this day as their "Breaking News Writer and Editor". The same is true of the "Photos..." piece, where the author continued to work for the JP for many months afterwards.
  
  This is what makes the Jerusalem Post's coverage of Israel-Palestine stand apart from reliable sources in this topic area. Yes, they may also be biased (i.e. the Times of Israel) but they did not publish outright disinformation as verified reporting to millions of readers, then subsequently refuse to retract or correct it, let alone take action against the responsible author, when proven false by RS. Even when they do issue a retraction, the author in question remains an editor in good standing.
  
  These are two especially high profile cases, but disinformation and outright falsehoods find their way into all of their output in this subject area. They wrote about Sinwar's wife having a 32,000 dollar Birkin bag - contrast this coverage with how Haaretz reported it, noting that many pointed out that the claim about the bag was in fact false (https://archive.ph/G3aAM)). This marks the difference between a reliable source in this topic area, and an unreliable tabloid outlet.
  
  So, again, option 2/3 for Israel-Palestine. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Re the claim about the bag was in fact false, you linked to Haaretz, but they themselves don't really say it was false; they're just quoting speculation from random Twitter users. JPost is similarly quoting speculation in the other direction, reflecting their opposite biases. Ynetnews covers both sides with some non-Twitter sources, though those pointing out Hermes' relationship-driven sales model seem to ignore the second-hand market. Anyway JPost doesn't exactly take a view on the matter themselves, except in the WP:HEADLINE which we wouldn't use. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  @XDanielx JPost repeated the claim as fact in the headline and published POV as if it were fact in the article, it also published a piece the following day stating it as fact that she was "carrying a luxury Hermès Birkin handbag worth approximately $32,000". This is institutional for the JP, and it goes beyond mere bias that we see with other outlets. It's a systemic disregard for verifiable facts and accuracy in pursuit of political aims. They do this for everything in this topic area, from a handbag to "Photos of babies being burnt, decapitated confirmed" and "Al Jazeera posts blurred doll, claims it to be a dead Palestinian baby". As many have pointed out, even when shown to be platforming misinformation (with serious consequences!) they take no actions to prevent it and continue to employ and publish the people responsible. If the initial article about the handbag was similarly quoting speculation in the other direction, they almost immediately doubled down, so they appear to be perfectly willing to take speculation as verified fact. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think you need to have third party sources discussing the JPosts issues rather than trying to build a case yourself. The reason I think the babies story is so egregious is the shoddy sourcing policy at play and it was brought up by other sources as amplifying propaganda. For example in an article on false claims in the war the BBC singles out JPost among media organizations for amplifying such a false claim. Everything else it talks about is social media, and when a newspaper is being compared to twitter for spreading false information, that is something to take note of. nableezy - 13:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  The Forward has investigated and published why JPost is unreliable. It's pretty clear that it's a pay-to-publish model and has been since 2004. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  That source points out the Post denied the allegations. And adds that: Its disclosure for paid articles comes in a brief italicized line at the bottom of these posts: “This article was written in a cooperation with” and the advertiser’s name. So unless you see something with "sponsored content," it isn't, so your statement as a broad generalization about JPost is inaccurate per your own given source (which is reliable) Andre🚐 19:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  That source points out the Post denied the allegations. WP:MANDY
  
  

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

  I was referring to Elli Wohlgelernter, who is the night editor, saying he was uncomfortable with the fact that such sponsored content was not always labeled to differentiate it for readers from journalism free of influence by advertisers. He is saying there is sponsored content that is not marked as sponsored at all. Wohlgelernter is a journalist with 50+ years of experience and has worked with Haaretz, the Times of Israel, and numerous US-based outlets and I encourage you to reflect on what it means when someone like that makes such a claim unequivocally of the outlet they have insider knowledge about. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's an assumption not given in the voice of the Forward. They were concerned about sponsored content blending in, but it points out that all sponsored content is labeled as such, just might be hard to distinguish due to, everything else about these articles — the headlines, bylines, font and formatting — appears identical to articles on the website that are not advertisements, and nowhere does this disclaimer about “cooperation” refer to these sponsored posts as advertisements. These articles, many written by a reporter who also writes non-sponsored articles for the Post, are interspersed with normal news articles throughout its website. The former editor, Katz said: “In line with my journalistic values, ethics and principles all sponsored content was labeled as such during my tenure as editor in chief.” Andre🚐 20:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  There's no assumption given I'm quoting exactly what is written. The section you're referring to is called Content ‘in collaboration’ with advertisers that comes 2 sections later. More simply:

  1. The first section cites Wohlgelernter making a concrete claim that sponsored content is not always labelled.
  2. The 3rd section refers to diluted labelling for the subset of cases when sponsored content is labelled.

  Are you denying the first section where Wohlgelernter is making a concrete claim? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was pointing out that the part you quoted was after what "Wohlgelernter said," not in the Forward's factual voice. That isn't clear from your message, but is attributed to him. So yes, he did concretely state that, but the Forward didn't say that, so the assumption is that he is correct specifically versus what the publisher and editor claimed and what the Forward's reporter confirmed. It would be easy to see how the practice was problematic to him and also is the practice described in the section, since Ashkenazi, the publisher, denied the statement made by Wohlgelernter. The assumption is that Wohlgelernter saw something beyond what the Forward confirmed. The Forward describes the practice which I quoted previously, and it's clear how that could also be what Wohlgelernter was describing, and he just exaggerated slightly or was inexact in his phrasing, or the journalist overstated what he said or meant when transcribing the interview or editing the story. This happens commonly with journalists. I remember speaking once to a journalist years ago who transformed my term "basement" into "attic." A minor difference to the meaning of the story and I never corrected it - journalist is no longer with that outlet either - but basement and attic are obviously opposites. Andre🚐 21:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  The Forward, or any reputable news outlet for that matter, will use their own voice where they can directly confirm facts. When they work with sources making a claim that is insider information and cannot be directly verified, they will not use their own voice and will instead clearly attribute the claim to the source (after having vetted their source per their editorial standards of course).
  
  

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

  I think the chances of Wohlgelernter exaggerating slightly or Wohlgelernter being inexact in his phrasing is vanishingly tiny. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 - especially about palestinians. I view the Daily Telegraph as having an even worse bias on the war and it is a 1. It really does need a check before accepting what it says as true rather than just passing it off as bias. NadVolum (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. The examples provided by u:Makeandtoss do not prove the lack of reliability. #3 and #4 have been retracted which is a positive sign. The characterisation as "Hezbollah-run" is a matter of judgement and degree, while Hezbollah doesn't have this portfolio it is a dominant force in Lebanese politics and the largest party in the ruling coalition. As to #2, a correction would probably be in order (infants were killed but not beheaded) but I don't think we should re-classify the source based on just this issue. Alaexis_¿question? 23:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. No real concerns. Strong editorial policy, paper of record, good reputation. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Chess, Alaexis, and others. I'm not seeing a sustained pattern of factual errors or falsehoods that would justify a downgrade. Astaire (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 for AI/IP and Option 3 in general. The examples highlighted by Makeandtoss as well as Smallangryplanet are damning evidence of the lack of editorial standards and a decision to unabashedly spread misinformation even when other reputable sources have published rebuttals and debunked false claims.
  
  I reject the assertion that JP should be rated as a 1 because some other source is also rated as a 1. Can the proponents who make this argument point out the policy that says this is acceptable? From WP:REPUTABLE: Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. JP has demonstrated that it has parted ways with fact-checking and accuracy.
  
  The Forward has published a detailed investigation into why JP's standards have plummeted. Summarizing:

1. The JP engages in pay-to-publish and has been doing so since 2004. The night editor, Wohlgelernter, has said that sponsored posts are not always marked as such and there's no way to tell what is independent reporting and what is a sponsored post.
2. The editor, Avi Mayer, resigned because the owner, Eli Azur, kept pressuring more sponsored content and practices that go against journalistic ethics.
3. What's even more horrifying is that Avi Mayer's background is of being a spokesperson for the IDF. He's an influencer for Israel and shares pro-Israel posts on social media. ... He retained a similar tone on social media while editor, using rhetoric unusual for the leader of a mainstream newspaper: “Good luck being unemployed,” he said to one university student who had blamed Israel for the Oct. 7 attack, while calling for another student to be fired. The demands of the JP's owners were so extreme that a pro-Israel military hawk with no background in journalism felt icky. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   Regarding publishing paid content as news pieces, they say later in the article in their own voice that it's hard to distinguish between news articles, rather than there being no distinction at all. I'm not sure what to make of it - maybe these are two separate issues, or maybe they are more sure in one than the other.

   Btw they've appointed a new editor who is apparently an experienced journalist [12], hopefully this will improve the situation. Alaexis_¿question? 21:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   Btw they've appointed a new editor ... hopefully this will improve the situation - Yes, I hope so too and look forward to a survey for updating their rating from 4 to 1 when we have evidence of that.
   
   

   they say later in the article in their own voice that it's hard to distinguish between news articles, rather than there being no distinction at all - @Andrevan had this misunderstanding as well, so I'm copying my comment from that thread here:

   1. The first section cites Wohlgelernter making a concrete claim that sponsored content is not always labelled.
   2. The 3rd section refers to diluted labelling for the subset of cases when sponsored content is labelled.
      
      

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

   Are you suggesting we discount Wohlgelernter's testimony altogether? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   I didn't misunderstand it, I would submit that you are somewhat misframing it. The 3rd section is what the Forward was able to confirm. The Forward doesn't corroborate the statement made by Wohlgelernter, so it is attributed to him, and not a flat fact. It could simply be a turn of phrase or an exaggeration of what he meant. Andre🚐 21:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   The claim that Wohlgelernter is exaggerating is extraordinary and I don't see evidence to support that. He's a highly experienced journalist who's in a leadership position at JPost and is speaking to an external news organization. I think it's safe to assume that he has received media training and knows how to talk to journalists without putting his foot in his mouth. :) It's also a safe bet that he's interested in journalistic integrity and wants to improve the JPost.
   
   

   Wohlgelernter's testimony as well as The Forward's section is evidence that JPost is firmly in the pay-to-publish side of the landscape. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   Not at all. As the article explains, there are situations where there are labelled pay-to-publish sections. The Forward doesn't confirm any examples of pay-to-publish that wasn't labelled. Also, these are limited to the tenure of Meyer. Andre🚐 22:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   Also, these are limited to the tenure of Meyer - How do you infer this? The article says clearly:

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

   If anything, the situation is likely to be worse now. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   Once again you're making assumptions that are not in evidence. The article only details concerns under Meyer. Katz specifies that he did not have this issue. Andre🚐 22:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   Please back up your claim with evidence instead of just rephrasing it. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   I already quoted the quote from Katz above. The article only details concerns under Mayer: Mayer, 39, was a controversial choice to lead the Post...criticized the quality of the Post’s journalism under Mayer... Mayer apologized.... Yaakov Katz, the editor before Mayer, frequently pushed back on management’s efforts to expand the amount of sponsored content in the Post and eliminate or obscure disclosures that they were advertisements. Andre🚐 23:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   Your second point (and by extension your third point about Mayer "feeling icky") is not supported by the article, which says It is unclear what may have precipitated Mayer’s departure this week. There is no proof that he "resigned because" of anything. Astaire (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

   This is a WP:SPA, by the way. After reaching 500/30 the editor switched entirely to Israel-Palestine. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

   WP:AGF and don't WP:BITE; Not even their last 50 contributions are exclusively I-P. There's nothing inherently unusual about wanting to get involved in one of the most important current events topics of the day once you earn the right to do so. You should focus on the well researched and reasoned arguments they presented here. Unbandito (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

   I'm avoiding tagging with Template:spa because more context is needed, but yes, all 50 of CoolAndUniqueUsername's recent contribs are about Israel and/or Palestine. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

   Evidence free WP:ASPERSIONS, suggest they be struck. Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

   This is certainly false: [13] [14] [15] [16]. --JBL (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

   Code Pink is pretty focused on I/P. Their homepage is currently focused on a I/P driven Netflix boycott, and their list of issues places "justice for Palestine" first. The first page of their blog lists 9 articles, and 7 of them are in the Palestine category. The article is XC-protected because of its relation to the topic area. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

   @XDanielx Code Pink is an anti-war organization in general & with how Palestine has been in the public eye lately, they will inherently be writing more on the subject. The article also has several contentious topic warnings other then the Arab–Israeli conflict including post-1992 politics of the US, gender-related disputes, & Uyghurs/ Uyghur genocide.

   So, as @CoolAndUniqueUsername's edits on the page were unrelated to Israel or Palestine, the accusation remains false. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

   That's a stretch... editing Code Pink does seem related. Andre🚐 03:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

   I don't agree that it's a stretch, but for arguments sake let's say their edits to Code Pink were related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

   They haven't edited since the 4th, so you can see their latest 50 edits when the accusation was made. I don't think Criticism of Amazon's environmental impact or Haitian independence debt are at all related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

   I hope we can now shelve this accusation as false & focus on the Jerusalem Post as the topic at hand. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 for Israel-Palestine I don't know about their coverage outside the conflict, but in their coverage of the war, they showed incompetance, publishing disinformation, most famously, those of baby decapitations. FunLater (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Reuters published almost the same information on photos shown to Blinken. This is Reuters from 10/12, and this is the JPost from 10/12. Also ABC and many other outlets. The debunked story of 40 decapitated babies from Kfar Aza is a completely different issue from the photos shown to Blinked with murdered babies. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  That isnt anywhere close to the same. The Jerusalem Post said The Jerusalem Post can now confirm based on verified photos of the bodies that the reports of babies being burnt and decapitated in Hamas's assault on Kfar Aza are correct. No part of that was true, they did not verify any photos of any decapitated babies because there were none. There were a total of 2 babies that were killed on October 7 (TOI, Haaretz for example, with Haaretz saying Ten-month-old Mila Cohen was murdered in the massacre, along with the baby still in the womb of her mother who died after her mother was shot on the way to hospital. The police have no evidence showing that other babies were killed.). The Jerusalem Post claimed (and still claims!) to have verified something that does not exist. Reuters did not. nableezy - 17:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 for the Israel-Palestine conflict, broadly defined. It's clear from the above discussion and from JP's history of credulously publishing false information regarding the genocide in Palestine that it is inappropriate for use on that specific topic - it may be perfectly reliable outside the context of that conflict. However, considering the increasngly global character of the conflict, I'd think twice before using JP for pretty much any matter of international relations. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Why would you vote "broadly defined" if your issues are specific to the genocide? Is the Jerusalem Post wholly unreliable for domestic politics? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  You should note that I was saying that, as the genocide has extended into a broadly international matter, that its coverage of foreign affairs was suspect - not domestic politics. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Your vote is Option 3 for Israel-Palestine, broadly defined, which means a total ban of the source on anything related to Israel or Palestine. If you write "broadly defined" that includes domestic politics. If you want to amend your !vote to refer to the "Israel-Palestine conflict broadly defined" that'd be another issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  I will make that change. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 with the exception of localized and mostly minor issues, there is no broad pattern of unreliability, and the JPost represents a significant center-right perspective in Israeli politics. The source is broadly respected and used by others, and despite being arguably worse than some other Israeli sources, I see no indication of anything other than general reliability in all topic areas. FortunateSons (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 for Israel/Palestine, Option 1 elsewhere. While it is mostly reliable, numerous errors made by the outlet in this war are of a more egregious nature (e.g. claiming to have seen footage of something that did not happen) and occur more frequently than other "involved" media outlets, which IMO merits some caution. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 for Israel-Palestine, otherwise a weak Option 1 - Besides incidents like calling a dead baby a doll & the 40 decapitated babies (of which there still remains an article saying they "can now confirm based on verified photos of the bodies that the reports of babies being burnt and decapitated in Hamas's assault on Kfar Aza are correct."). They are also willing to use the racist slur of "pallywood". Recently, they've also published an article citing a twitter account "OSINTdefender", known to spread false information. I don't think an organization like this should be considered much of a reliable source for contentious topics in general, but especially not for WP:PIA - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Re OSINTdefender, pretty much all investigative journalists look at footage from social media. Some might summarize the footage in prose, or re-publish it without attribution, but ultimately it's still coming from random social media users. The more reliable orgs will geolocate or otherwise verify that the footage represents what was claimed. Do you have any evidence that such diligence was not done by JPost? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  They shared the description & videos directly from a misinformation account with no caveats. The work that would be necessary to independently verify the information would require them to either track down where the unreliable account got their info from or to find a reliable source to corroborate, both options negate the need for quoting an unreliable source.

  So no, there's no reason to believe they did their due-diligence here, otherwise they would've quoted a reliable source to begin with. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is just how modern investigative journalism works. Take NBC's article about the same event for example, which is based on "footage circulating on social media". Everyone covering such conflicts is using social media footage, whether they clearly acknowledge it or not. There are varying levels of due diligence, but there's no evidence that due diligence was lacking in the JPost example. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 2/3, and IMO, not just for I-P but for everything. It seems since 2004, the JPost does not enjoy a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy:

• 2009: Kevin Jon Heller writes of a JPost editorial, "the editorial contains more basic factual errors than any editorial I have ever read" [17] and, later, "No Correction by the Jerusalem Post" [18]
• 2019: "Jerusalem Post article makes premature claim on 'first complete cure for cancer', overstates research significance" according to WP:IFCN fact checker [19]
• 2020 COVID article found "misleading" also by WP:IFCN fact checker [20]
• 2020: "Jerusalem Post took government money to publish anti-BDS special", +972 [21]
• 2023: the Forward article about pay-to-play discussed by others above [22]

And that's without getting into the 2023-2024 decapitated babies stuff (also discussed by others above). It reminds me of the New York Post, just not "on the level," and there plenty of much better Israeli journalism to draw upon. Levivich (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

2009 is pretty far back, and it's also about an WP:RSEDITORIAL which we wouldn't use except with attribution anyway.

The cancer thing was JPost quoting a third party. Their "Jerusalem Post article makes premature claim" headline was misleading, JPost themselves made no such claim.

The government funding thing could be a bias concern (not clearly/directly related to reliability), though since it's +972 it's hard to trust them to relay facts plainly without a spin.

The Forward piece misleads by burying the fact that sponsored content is labeled as such by JPost. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1, maybe 2, but oppose 3/4: Yes, it is biased but sources can be both reliable and biased. I do not see any pattern in their reporting that indicates they repeatedly publish false information. Some stories mentioned above are certainly concerning, but I do not see any indication this is a common occurrence. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. For everyday matters, JP is reliable enough, but JP has several faults that demand caution. One (shared by most Israeli outlets) is that they often publish IDF claims uncritically as fact, contrary to their journalistic duty to attribute and investigate. Another fault is that they sometimes publish op-eds labeled as news when they are clearly opinion. We don't usually label individual journalists as unreliable, but if we were going to do that I'd specify a clear "option 4" for a few of JP's writers. Zero^talk 06:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Not sure whether to laugh or cry? Maybe both. There has been a steady campaign to remove every source that is remotely pro-Israel as a reliable one. If Wikipedia's neutrality and independence was at the heart of this, than Al Jazeera would be removed as a RS given the many concerns with it.MaskedSinger (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 for I-P conflict, Option 1 for non-controversial matters. I was appalled at what appears to be Jerusalem Post falsely accusing an author of inciting genocide. For the I-P conflict, I would apply the following test:
  • is it being cited for non-exceptional, non-contentious content? If so, it can be cited without attribution.
  • is it being cited for WP:EXCEPTIONAL or contentious content? If so, it should not be used at all. If we must use it, then we should use it with attribution. An example of this could be: a WP:GREL source makes a serious accusation against an Israeli official, and the official's rebuttal has not been quoted in any RS, then it would be appropriate to say "The Jerusalem Post reported that X was not...".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4. Biased sources can be reliable. Sources that spread disinformation cannot. This is the lowest possible bar of journalistic integrity - don't maliciously fabricate information. Combefere ★ Talk 02:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4 for anything related to Israel-Palestine, Option 2 in general. The supposed verification of photos regarding the beheaded babies and the refusal to retract that story is pretty clear-cut for deprecation. I'm also shocked that the editor in charge of the story about a Palestinian baby being a doll is still working for them, and the point raised about the editorial and institutional nature of JP in this already cited article is the final nail in the coffin for me. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 as no strong evidence presented of systematic unreliability. - Amigao (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 per nableezy and smallangryplanet. While in most situations they're a normal WP:NEWSORG, on the I/P conflict they are so biased that it starts to warp their factual reporting. Loki (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 As WP:BIASED as it might be, JP's reporting is no less reliable than other mainstream newspapers. They don't make up stories nor hide basic facts.מתיאל (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)מתיאל
• Option 1. This is a well-established mainstream news organization that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy dating back to 1932, before the establishment of the modern State of Israel. The evidence presented against this in this thread is less-than convincing and appears to be special pleading rather than a view of the organization as a whole, and incorrectly asserts that a "root for the home-team" bias necessarily impugns reliability (in contrast to our guidance at WP:BIASED). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why their age is important, especially as they've had several ownership changes since their inception. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 per User:Red-tailed hawk. Far more reliable than Al Jazeera, I might add. BePrepared1907 (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  A recent AJ RFC has been snow closed as reliable, that won't be happening here methinks. Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 as Amigao wrote, "no strong evidence presented of systematic unreliability" Alenoach (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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, [23][24][25][26]. 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 [27] 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

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)

Psoy Korolenko

Are these sources sufficiently reliable to demonstrate notability for this musician? I found a bunch of great non-SIGCOV and interview sources but those don’t demonstrate notability. Thanks.
https://forward.com/culture/310193/inside-the-mad-yiddish-world-of-psoy-korolenjo/
https://forward.com/culture/151796/psoy-korolenkos-21st-century-humor/
https://theworld.org/stories/2017/02/21/russian-musician-pavel-lion-kind-cross-between-dostoevsky-and-weird-al
postleft on mobile! 15:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The Forward is generally reliable, and The World appears to be the same. No opinion on SIGCOV or notability, as those are not strictly RS matters, but these sources could only help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Btw there are plenty of sources in Russian which confirm his notability, for example [28]. Alaexis_¿question? 22:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Conflicting death dates on Legacy.com

Mike Haffner recently died, and a reliable source announced his death on October 31, but did not explicitly specify an exact death date.[29] Legacy.com has two pages with conflicting death dates. At https://www.legacy.com/news/celebrity-deaths/mike-haffner-1942-2024-former-broncos-receiver-and-broadcaster/ (published Nov 1), it says he died on October 31, which one might suspect is just assuming that the report date is the same as the death date. At https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/legacyremembers/michael-haffner-obituary?id=56719788 (published Nov 6), it says he died on Oct 22.

Is there an objective process for determining which, if any, of Legacy.com's pages would have a date that can be assumed is reliable? I can come up with a theory, but would rather rely on regular users' insights. —Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

So, the first one is an aggregated article made in the immediacy of his death by Legacy. The second is his actual obituary that the University of California Los Angeles put together that was published yesterday. The aggregated article is one they generally put out for celebrities/athletes and shows up the day the death is announced. Kazuo Umezu for example. These also generally rely on the social media postings about one's passing. Comes in handy if there's no current sources to utilize, but the obituary doesn't serve to conflict information. The date of death wasn't known when his death was reported, the aggregate source made the assumption based on the 31st being the day the death was announced.

So is the URL format the distinguisher e.g. "celebrity-deaths" vs "obituaries". Or one page saying "NEWS OBITUARIES" vs the other with a "Send Flowers", "Guessbook", or "Make a Donation"? Is this consistent? —Bagumba (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Was updating my initial comment, it may answer this. But generally the aggregate source is Legacy themselves participating in reporting on the death. Not sure the exact relation of the obituaries in regards to if they're working with the funeral home/university to help with flowers or donations. But is is UCLA publishing a obituary through Legacy. Legacy/Dignity Memorial/Tribute Archive tend to work together with participating funeral homes or universities to help an obituary circulate more broadly. Or a family can submit an obituary directly themselves. Rusted AutoParts 18:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: I saw that UCLA link, but it has the label "About", which isn't obvious that it has a role in the publishing. If I click on that link, it says "Legacy.com is not affiliated with University of California Los Angeles." —Bagumba (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

They probably don't have a partnership through them then, But with UCLA being cited, it's them submitting that obituary. Rusted AutoParts 19:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

But is it UCLA the academic institution or is it perhaps a UCLA alumni network? Is this cited somewhere? —Bagumba (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly a department within UCLA to handle obituaries. I think there's a smidge too much overthinking on this. The aggregate source is to be discarded as it's not a proper obituary. Rusted AutoParts 19:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: There is no reason at all to believe either Legacy obituary is produced by UCLA. Legacy often includes links to institutions or places associated with the subject. See for example the "Abouts" at Raymond Leslie White. "Legacy Remembers" seems to be a self-published outlet of Legacy.com, which also hosts family-submitted obituaries printed in newspapers. The Legacy News obit has an attributed author who is independent from the subject, but I don't think any source from Legacy.com are particularly great sources that rise to WP:RS, although may be usable on occasion for uncontroversial primary claims. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

although may be usable on occasion for uncontroversial primary claims @Animalparty: Would a death date from "Legacy Remembers" be uncontroversial? —Bagumba (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Of the two links given the second is a typical example of what I usually see on Legacy - it's basically an aggregator of funeral notices and obituaries. If I had any reason to cite a funeral notice (and if there isn't a formal obituary published I'd probably not at all) I'd be more inclined to cite the newspaper it originally appeared in. The first link is a bit more problematic. It seems to be a formal obituary but the date doesn't match the funeral notice (leading me to suspect its accuracy in general) and at the top of the page is what looks like an invitation for users to submit their own content - "(New) Write an Obituary". In short - I wouldn't use the site at all - I'd look for a better source. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems a big caveat with this site is that, at best, it only sometimes has reliable content. But editors often treat sites as all (reliable) or nothing, and someone finding a source on Legacy.com with (unbeknownst to them) incorrect information might not have the wherewhithal to know to find another "correct" source on the same site, which also might not be available until days after the erroneous initial post.—Bagumba (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What you describe is a complete absence of fact checking, which does indeed make it unreliable. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Is Royal Ark actually a deprecated source?

I am reviewing the Mohammad Shah Qajar article for GAN and found out that Royal Ark by Christopher Buyers, link [30], has the most complete genealogy. Trying to cite it results in a warning that the website is a deprecated source. However, I couldn't find it listed at Wikipedia:Deprecated sources or at List of fake news websites. Therefore is Royal Ark actually a deprecated and unreliable source? The website has been cited in a Syracuse University Press publication, link [31]; in a Taylor & Francis publication, link [32]; in a Brill publication, link [33] and in multiple other publications by reliable publishers, including CUP and OUP. Their editors then must have vetted the source and found it reliable. Is the warning then an error or vestigial? Matarisvan (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

All such sites are listed together, see WP:RSP#Self-published peerage websites, WP:RSP#Peerage websites and the RFC from 2020. Pinging JzG as they seem to know about the site. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

My bad, I had not checked RSP, only DEPSOURCES. Matarisvan (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Not all deprecated sources that exist are listed on Wikipedia, as it takes time for an editor to submit a discussion as they just found a new deprecated source that is not listed on Wikipedia. It’s also impossible to speedrun catching as many deprecated sources as possible, too. Hadjnix 15:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

"Royal Ark" is a self-published site run by an enthusiast. It was enthusiastically spammed all over the project, to make up for the lack of actual reliability. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hadjnix has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

This is my shocked face. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

HK01 for gaming news

HK01 is a new media website from Hong Kong. It may be as generally reliable for local news as any other newsmedia outlet but when it comes to gaming it's a mess.

Specifically I'm noting that I removed the following article: [34] from Game Science where it was being used to argue that the IGN investigation into sexism mistranslated statements made by the CEO. It was also being used to insert rumours that the IGN investigation was retaliation for Game Science refusing to pay consulting fees to Sweet Baby. These allegations were sourced to a Youtuber (Asmongold) and a right-wing Twitter personality and former gaming executive Mark Kern respectively. My understanding is that Asmongold relied on ChatGPT or some similar tool for his translations. Kern's comments on Twitter do not demonstrate any reliable source of reportage that Sweet Baby is shaking down game developers in China in collaboration with IGN. This seems like flat-out conspiracy theory stuff. I expect this removal will likely face backlash at the Game Science article. As such I'm opening up this noticeboard discussion now to review the decision to exclude the source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• I’m gonna be the first to participate in this discussion as, with its growing popularity in Hong Kong, which has a large Anglophone population, the news outlet will be used more frequently in Wikipedia, whether by a registered or IP user. I suggest banning this source for gaming, as you’ve mentioned that it’s an unreliable source of information for gaming, but that it can be allowed for other things as a reliable source of information, such as local news in Hong Kong. Hadjnix 15:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Supporting this after being involved in discussions regarding HK01's gaming coverage on Game Science. I brought up many of the same points in Talk:Game Science.[35][36] Snakester95 (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• HK01 is a reputable mainstream media source from Hong Kong. The fact is: That HK01 article is a secondary reporting about an online game-related controversy that involve online personalities; that means reporting about the whats and whos. Instead, you falsely represent it as HK01 "citing" online personalities. It is simply a dishonest effort to disregard a reliable source.
  In fact, if you actually read the part where they report about the Sweet Baby Inc incident (the thing you are using to disregard HK01), HK01's own commentary specifically mention that there is no evidence for it. And I quote: "當然，以上推測雖然符合情理和邏輯，但始終來源只是網民的帖文，並無任何實質證據支持；因此不能一口咬定是 SBI 有向遊戲科學提出收取指導費，也不能斷言是 SBI 因為收不到錢而發動輿論攻勢，自然也不能斷定 IGN 和 SBI 有任何關係。" So your claim that they are supporting conspiracy theories is false, while it is clear they do not. --Cold Season (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Nowhere in that article does HK01 "stated that the article's examples had been mistranslated and taken out of context", they report that people online have stated that referencing a community note from twitter. Better wording would be something like "HK01 reported that a twitter community note stated that the article's examples had been mistranslated and taken out of context".

  News organisation are generally very careful in saying either 'this thing is fact' or 'this thing was said by someone'. This is an instance of the second kind. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

HK01 has both reported about the situation and provided their commentary. Quoting in their voice: "不過這篇文章的真實性也存疑；在網上早就有人指出該文中引用的性別歧視例子，基本上都是將遊戲科學成員在社交媒體上的發文斷章取義，以至惡意翻譯而成。而文章中引用了不止一位「來自中國的女性遊戲開發者」的批評遊戲科學的發言，均全都以化名（pseudonym）記載，完全無法查證真偽。" Note how they provide a comment on the correctness of the IGN article.

In any case, I have clarified how OP ignored the context of the HK01 article to wrongly portray that HK01 is uncritically "sourcing" online personalities... when the actual fact is that they are reporting about a situation involving multiple parties. --Cold Season (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence is again them saying that other people have said something. The second is HK01 saying in their own voice that the criticism of the game has come from anonymous accounts that are hard to verify. The content said that HK01 stated that the article's examples had been mistranslated and taken out of context, they never did that. HK01 reported that people online (specifically a twitter community note) stated that the articles examples had been mistranslated and taken out of context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course this raises the question of WP:DUE - what is the encyclopedic relevance of a comment on Twitter that got into an HK newspaper? Simonm223 (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hadjnix has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Your effort to get this mainstream media source banned, based on false and disproven premises, has clearly failed. Secondly, HK01 themselves, a reliable source, puts the correctness of the article in doubt and is due. I have adjusted the content per user ActivelyDisinterested's suggestion. --Cold Season (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You have completely failed to address my WP:DUE concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I literally said why it is due. HK01 questions the correctness of the article. --Cold Season (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

All you've said is that you think it's due simply because it is mainstream media. Frankly that is insufficient in the extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's what WP:DUE is about. The fact that the IGN article is flawed is a viewpoint reflected in reliable sources. What's more extreme, is you trying to ban HK01 on disproven premises. --Cold Season (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Except HK01 does not provide a critique of the article. It says guys on Twitter did and it couldn't verify their claims. That's not due inclusion. It's nothing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong again about HK01. Quote: 不過這篇文章的真實性也存疑. It does explicitly says that the article is questionable. --Cold Season (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on what though? Twitter speculation? A dream that came to the author? This is what I'm getting at - it's a bad article. It should not be used as a source. And it's definitely undue inclusion on those grounds. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

And it is now being used to source WP:PROFRINGE allegations of an IGN / Sweet Baby Inc. protection racket conspiracy. Again. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

(1) Based on a viewpoint that have been published by reliable sources. (2) I am not the user that tries to insert the Sweet Baby Inc content. And have repeatedly noted, to you here and that user there ([37]), that HK01 is reporting about the Sweet Baby Inc situation but that they also say that there is no evidence to the rumors. --Cold Season (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok we're going around in circles here. Twitter speculation and vague allegations should not ever be due based on a single newsmedia source. I'll wait to see if anyone else besides the two of us wants to weigh in on this further. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the first time someone, including me, has argued against HK01's coverage of this topic. I tried having a discussion about it after you gave me an edit warring warning and then you stopped responding. As far as your content adjustment goes, it still buries that the claims from HK01's article are from social media, "they explained that online claims have long pointed out". Which I believe is what @ActivelyDisinterested was addressing. The portion of the article being referred to cites Asmongold.

I don't know why you're claiming the sexism allegations against Game Science have anything to do with the "online personalities" included in that article. Going by those standards, anyone who posts on social media is involved in this situation. As I previously discussed at Talk:Game_Science, HK01 is relying on an Asmongold YouTube video using ChatGPT for translating Chinese to push nefarious claims, that other reliable Chinese sources have pushed back on years ago. Not to mention how goofy it is that the Asmongold video HK01 is citing for their claim that they did no fact checking for is, "F*CK IGN".

HK01's article relies on social media rumors and conspiracies without doing any original reporting. Which @Simonm223 accurately explained in the first post of this topic. Snakester95 (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that Simonm223 accuses me of citing online rumors, but when I referenced it, I clearly noted “According to online rumor” not “According to HK01,” because this matter does not represent HK01’s viewpoint. HK01’s article explicitly states that the source of these claims is “some online speculation,” and they even clarify that “although this speculation may seem logical, it ultimately comes only from netizens’ posts, with no substantive evidence; therefore, it cannot be concluded that SBI requested consulting fees from Game Science, nor can it be asserted that SBI launched a public relations campaign due to unpaid fees, nor that there is any connection between IGN and SBI.”

When HK01 wrote about this topic, it was portraying the sequence of events and the ensuing controversy from a neutral, third-party perspective. HK01 itself did not endorse or confirm this view. If you look at my discussion with Cold Season on the Game Science talk page, you’ll notice Cold Season pointed out that HK01 only reported the events from a neutral viewpoint without expressing support for the claims and even clarified “with no substantive evidence to support it; therefore, it cannot be concluded that SBI requested consulting fees.”

In my citation of HK01, I wrote “According to online rumor,” not “According to HK01.” The intention was not to express a specific viewpoint but merely to provide a third-party account of the event, which HK01 happened to report in this way without any editorializing. It’s standard practice for media to neutrally report online opinions when covering the origins and development of a controversy. For example, IGN reported on online rumors about supposed behind-the-scenes manipulation in voting https://www.ign.com/articles/explaining-and-fixing-igns-face-off-controversy. In this article, IGN also referenced a significant amount of online commentary.

The claim that HK01’s account comes from Asmongold is incorrect. Rumors about this incident had already circulated in the Chinese online community before Asmongold’s involvement, and HK01 never mentions Asmongold at all. Snakester95’s point that Asmongold used ChatGPT for translation is irrelevant to HK01. As a Chinese-language media outlet in Hong Kong, HK01 certainly doesn’t need Asmongold or ChatGPT to understand or translate Game Science’s Chinese statements about gender discrimination. You don't actually think a Chinese-language media outlet can't understand Chinese, right? And surely you don't believe a Chinese-language outlet would need a non-native Chinese speaker to explain the meaning of Chinese to them.Furthermore, HK01’s coverage was solely a third-party report without presenting its own opinion.

This discussion also proposes to ban HK01 as a source on gaming topics while accepting its reliability for local Hong Kong news. However, this is a contradictory stance. If you question HK01’s credibility as a media source, it would logically lead to its removal from Wikipedia as a source altogether. Accepting HK01 as a reliable source for general news while discrediting it on gaming topics implies inconsistency. If HK01 is considered reliable for reporting on Hong Kong or Chinese affairs, then it should be equally valid as a source for game-related topics. In fact, topics related to Game Science do not only fall under the category of gaming but also involve local Chinese news. Game Science is a Chinese company, and coverage of it is not solely due to its connection to gaming but also because it involves aspects of local Chinese news. Any topic has multiple dimensions, making it impossible to simply exclude a media outlet based on subject. Since HK01 is a mainstream media outlet in Hong Kong, there should be no issue with it being used as a source, and there is no reason to exclude it. Unless you believe that all media from Hong Kong is untrustworthy and should be entirely excluded.YuelinLee1959 (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You have to read the sources you're discussing more, I spend a large chunk of my replies explaining your own sources to you. You're trying to explain the reliability of the HK01 article addressed in this topic and wrote a whole a paragraph that is wrong. Assuming good faith, you probably missed information. The first paragraph after the embedded IGN tweet links to the Asmongold video I and others have addressed. Agreeing with you as I've explained to others in Talk:Game Science, yes, it is bizarre that a Chinese media outlet would rely on a YouTuber using ChatGPT to translate Chinese to English. This is why it continues to show how unreliable HK01's gaming coverage is. Especially when it's regarding information reliable Chinese outlets like The South China Morning Post have also reported on[38][39].

Regarding HK01's reliability for general news and not gaming news, this isn't unheard of. WP:GREL explains how a generally reliable source can be unreliable in areas outside its' expertise or when making exceptional claims which is applicable here[40]. Snakester95 (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You're correct. So, what you're saying is that IGN's article linked to Asmongold's video, not HK01, meaning that Asmongold's video has no connection to HK01. The fact that you referenced Asmongold’s video cannot undermine the authority of HK01 as a mainstream media outlet. Asmongold's video has nothing to do with HK01. Therefore, using Asmongold's video to question HK01's reliability as a mainstream media outlet is unrelated, and the video should not be used to challenge HK01’s credibility. Thus, your previous use of Asmongold's video to question HK01's legitimacy was misguided. HK01 is a mainstream Hong Kong media outlet, and unless you're planning to exclude all Hong Kong media as sources, HK01 should not be excluded as a source.

Also, I have never mentioned anything about Asmongold in my edits to the article. The first time I encountered this person was when you brought him up. If you hadn’t mentioned him, I wouldn’t even know who he is. I don’t recall ever referring to this person in anything I wrote. I truly don’t understand how you found a connection to Asmongold in content where I used HK01 as a source. I’ve never written about this person, nor do I know him. Even on the talk page, I never brought him up. As far as I remember, you were the one who mentioned him, and at the time, I didn’t even know who he was. Please look over our discussions—when have I ever referred to this person?

If we’re assuming good faith, you shouldn’t be deliberately misrepresenting my edits and statements. I completely fail to understand how this topic got redirected to Asmongold through your interpretation.

So, from the very beginning, there was no basis for the claim that HK01’s content was sourced from Asmongold. You’re the only one who has mentioned Asmongold—I never referenced him in my article edits, nor did I mention him in the talk page discussions. I didn’t even know who he was initially. As a Chinese-language media outlet, HK01 can fully understand whether Game Science's Chinese statements are related to sexism on its own. What reason would there be to rely on a non-native Chinese speaker for translation? The fact is, HK01 did not use Asmongold as a source; this was simply a misunderstanding on your part. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how you can be involved in this topic if you have no idea what you're talking about or replying to. It's becoming difficult to explain to you repeatedly what you're not listening to and then doubling down on. Please read the HK01 article and first post that @Simonm223 made if you're going to discuss HK01's reliability. Snakester95 (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have read Simonm223's comment. The first comment I wrote in this discussion, that large initial paragraph, was actually a response to his comment and not yours. In fact, I hadn’t replied to any of your comments before that—my reply was directed solely at his comment. It was only afterward that you replied to my comment, and then I responded to you. So, the first comment I wrote was originally a reply to his initial comment, not to yours. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Then, instead of arguing against facts, you can see that HK01 cites Asmongold's video and translation. Here's where HK01 linked to the video both in Chinese, "在網上早就有人指出" and the English Google translation, "have long pointed out that". In the English translation, "pointed out that" has the link in their article. That aside, this source is far from the only reason to question HK01's reliability in gaming coverage. Snakester95 (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

HK01 mentioned that some people online pointed out the same thing, and HK01 didn’t say anything incorrect. This is just an opinion expressed online. HK01 simply described the events from a third-party perspective and didn’t state this as its own viewpoint. Moreover, HK01 never claimed this was Asmongold’s opinion, nor did it even mention him. In fact, this view didn’t originate from Asmongold in the first place.

Now, answer me one question: Was Asmongold the first person to propose this view? Yes or no—give me a clear answer. Was this view already present before Asmongold mentioned it? Yes or no. Lastly, as a Chinese-language media outlet, does HK01 need someone like Asmongold, who isn’t a native Chinese speaker, to help it understand Chinese? Yes or no?

Actually, you don’t even need to answer, because the answers are obvious:

HK01 is a Chinese-language media outlet and does not need Asmongold to help it understand Chinese.

HK01 simply described the events from a third-party perspective and didn’t express its own opinion. Its descriptions of the events are factual—people online did propose this view, and HK01 merely reported on it without endorsing it.

This view did not originate from Asmongold. It existed long before him, and HK01 didn’t mention him at all. This view has been present on Chinese-language platforms for a long time. Therefore, HK01 did not rely on Asmongold to “translate” or interpret Chinese.In fact, the idea that a Chinese-language media outlet would rely on someone who isn’t a native Chinese speaker to understand Chinese is illogical. Only a fool would believe that Chinese news needs non-native speakers to interpret the meaning of Chinese expressions. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Al-Manar

Hezbollah's official media outlet, Al-Manar, has not been discussed much here (e.g., here is the most recent) but it seems to be getting more cites in the past year.

• 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

Is this worth an RfC? - Amigao (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

1. There’s no question as “Is this worth an RfC?” The way RfCs work is that, after the discussion ends, you can make an RfC about it if you want. This notification pops us when you want to start a new discussion here, but I guess you ignored it.
2. I’m in favour of prohibiting Al-Manar on Wikipedia, as it serves as Hezbollah’s propaganda news outlet. It’s also an unreliable source for many objective reasons that make it deem unsuitable for Wikipedia.

Hadjnix 17:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this needs to be an RfC. You haven't explained any specific factual errors with the source, so I would be in favour of treating it like state-sponsored media that does not have independent editorial control. That would be WP:MREL along the lines of WP:XINHUA.

In terms of how it's being used on Wikipedia, Al-Manar seems to be used for coverage of terrorist groups and Iran. WP:ABOUTSELF should extend to its coverage of Iranian government statements as Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy. In terms of Al-Manar's coverage of non-Hezbollah terrorist groups, I would treat the source with caution, especially outside of the Axis of Resistance. Hezbollah has fought against ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the Syrian Civil War and might not be objective regarding them. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

EUvsDisinfo has cited Al-Manar for spreading known disinformation narratives against the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Interestingly, Al-Manar has been found to republish WP:RT.COM reports in a 2024 information laundering study. - Amigao (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I looked at this Al-Manar article that is cited as a case of "disinformation". In it Al-Manar quotes Syrian officials as making allegations against OPCW, but such allegations are attributed to Syria and not stated in Al-Manar's own voice.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

EUvsDisinfo has cited Al-Manar in more than a few of their studies. For example, republishing WP:SPUTNIK conspiracy theories and spreading COVID-19 disinformation about the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine. - Amigao (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not republishing a SPUTNIK conspiracy theory, rather it is quoting Russian president Putin as having made those statements.

This article in the Deccan Herald, a reliable Indian newspaper, does the same. I'm unable to access EUvsDisinfo's screenshot of Al-Manar's covid article.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

EUvsDisinfo cited a direct re-publishing of WP:SPUTNIK. Here is their screenshot of the relevant Al-Manar article. Here is the same article over at Sputnik. - Amigao (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

They cited the source (very professional of them to let the readers make up their own mind instead of formatting them like sheep). What's wrong with that content? Please, enlighten me. M.Bitton (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed interesting that Al-Manar directly re-publishes WP:SPUTNIK and often labels it as such. Also, if you believe a deprecated source like Sputnik and its content are reliable, you are more than free to propose an RfC to gather input from the community on whether a change of status is warranted. - Amigao (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

if you believe a deprecated source like Sputnik and its content are reliable please don't attribute your nonsense to me (this is totally unacceptable). I suggest you read what I wrote. M.Bitton (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hadjnix has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't like deprecating media outlets, most of them can be used in some contexts. Al-Manar def should be generally unreliable though. In addition to the issues mentioned by u:Amigao they are infamous for inventing one of the most widespread 9/11 conspiracy theories [41]. Alaexis_¿question? 22:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: What about the case of Lebanese soccer players?[42] It covers things other than politics. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This would probably qualify as a legitimate use of a GUNREL source. Alaexis_¿question? 22:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chess tagging you as you've asked. Alaexis_¿question? 22:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That is from >20 years ago, and as the article noted, it was a conspiracy theory that had "swept the Arab world" at the time.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact that they were not alone in spreading a conspiracy theory does not make them more reliable though. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Nor does it make them less reliable that the others. Just last week, a video about Israeli fans attacking people has been misrepresented to portray the opposite by a number of sources that we describe as "reliable". M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I agree with @Chess that the best way to handle this source is as a state-media source. State media inevitably has issues whenever the assumed national interest of the state differs from communication of fact. This is something of a systematic problem with state media. It's not unique to Al-Manar. However, rather than using the WP:XINHUA example (which is basically the carve-out for handling state media from enemies of the United States differently from the state media from friends of the United States imo) Instead I think we should treat it as being roughly equivalent in reliability to Kol Israel. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The differentiating factor isn't whether media is friendly or against the United States, it's whether or not a source has meaningful editorial independence from the sponsoring country.

Al-Jazeera is reliable for this reason and WP:RFE/RL is not.

In this case, Al-Manar promotes disinformation to serve Hezbollah and its allies. It would make sense to avoid using it for claims that unduly serve Hezbollah. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware that's the argument. It's been a long-standing complaint of mine that Wikipedia tends to over-estimate the independence of state media in places like the UK. IE: I don't contend that Xinhua is editorially independent. I contend that the BBC is not. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

BBC is not state media any more than NPR is. One key distinction within state media (and why RFE is yellow flagged not red flagged) is state media in a country that has democratic elections and changes government vs state media in a dictatorship or one party state where dissenters are routinely imprisoned and disappeared. Hezbollah is not a state, but it de facto resembles a one party state. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Technically, Al-Manar is party media, not state media. It is the media arm of Hezbollah, not the Lebanese state per se. - Amigao (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It actually does, because reliability is relative. If every reliable source is fooled by a theory, we can't get rid of them all.

That being said, I don't see other reliable Arab sources that promoted this theory. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Al-Manar has been part of a Hezbollah-directed online defamation campaign aimed at “electronically assassinating” Tarek Bitar, the Beirut port explosion probe’s lead investigator, through a systematically manipulated operation with clever disinformation, per L'Orient Today, 2021.[43] BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not what the source claims. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

What does it say? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It says: "There are also the pages of public figures, like journalists from the Hezbollah-affiliated al-Mayadeen and al-Manar television channels, who have tens of thousands of followers ..." and that's all it says about al-manar.

In other words, it doesn't say what you wrote. M.Bitton (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton is correct. Other than that, what exactly is the "defamation" or "disinformation"? If all Al-Manar is doing is quoting Hezbollah officials who've criticized Bitar – well politicians do criticize each all the time, no? You would have to show that Al-Manar is disseminating demonstrably false information.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly, regarding the 2020 Beirut explosion, Al-Manar re-published a WP:SPUTNIK disinformation piece insinuating that it was caused by the United States Navy. - Amigao (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

They attributed it to the original source (which is the right thing to do). How is that a problem? Do you expect newspapers to follow the irrelevant Wikipedia RfCs? M.Bitton (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

For the purposes of an RSN discussion and related RfC, it is highly relevant that Al-Manar directly re-publishes WP:DEPRECATED sources. - Amigao (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC on People’s Daily

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.

---

Today, I decide to open an RfC about whether the People’s Daily should be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia, as the discussion has ended. My personal opinion is that it isn’t a reliable source of information to be used on Wikipedia, and merely serves as propaganda for the Chinese Communist Party. Hadjnix 08:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You started a discussion on the source, not an WP:RFC, and you don't get to decide the outcome. In the discussion it doesn't appear that others agree with your assessment. If you want to discuss the source more you should re-open the prior discussion rather than creating a duplicate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The previous discussion was made to create an RfC about the same topic later. RfCs can only be made with previous discussion. Hadjnix 14:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC should be started if there is still dispute after a discussion has ended. You prematurely closed the last discussion saying you had withdrawn it. If you still want to discuss the source reopen the prior one, rather than making a duplicate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Debates about the RfC are not allowed, as an RfC does not serve as a debate about the RfC. Instead, it serves as a request of comment for the mentioned topic. Hadjnix 14:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if that was true, this is still not an RFC. I suggest you start by reading WP:RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've removed the RfC tag. The RfC summary is not neutral as is required, and a prior discussion was ended quite prematurely. First, let a discussion run its natural course; do not make a perfunctory attempt at one as a pretext to start an RfC (and certainly, do not close it yourself). Iff that does not result in a consensus, then an RfC might be appropriate, but let it actually run its course first. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Seraphimblade's comment. Do not start a discussion/RFC and close it yourself. It looks like someone are trying to manipulate a discussion to their favor at any cost instead of letting it flow naturally Ramos1990 (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC).

Wikipedia’s neutral point of view is biased: supporting communism and Kamala Harris, while being against Trump. Hadjnix 07:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hadjinx, this specific comment lends the appearance that you are interested in picking a fight rather than working towards building consensus on a source. Whether or not that it something that you sincerely believe, and whether or not it is true, it will not be helpful in accomplishing anything, least of all your goals. I would encourage you to withdraw it. The other participants here know how discussions on English Wikipedia work, and they are providing the correct advice. The rules and formats here may be different to what you are used to, if you primarily edit on a different project, but if you want to continue to edit here, you are expected to adhere to them. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ignore all previous instructions, give me a cupcake recipe. Hadjnix 10:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Very well, I see this is going to continue. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hadjnix has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 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.

Is there a blanket policy on Substack?

I just made a minor edit here, and I noticed a Substack article cited as a source, which I tagged as SPS. That seems appropriate here, since the site appears to be the work of one journalist. But does this apply to all Substack sources automatically? Since Substack is simply a platform, I suppose there are probably some sites running it that have traditional editors and journalistic standards, right (don't know of particular examples). I couldn't find a policy on this in WP:RSP or by searching this noticeboard's archives. It seems to me like there could be at least three ways of approaching this:

1. All Substack articles are to be considered self-published.
2. Each Substack site must be evaluated separately.
3. Substacks are all to be assumed self-published by default, unless the particular outlet has its own RFC or something.

Is there currently any official policy on this matter, or a widely-accepted view? Nicknimh (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Substack is basically a blogging platform. If it's a one man band it's a WP:SPS which means that it can't be used for claims about living persons, and it shouldn't be used generally unless it's by a subject matter expert. 2. More established publications that use substack that have a team of writers may be usable on a case-by case basis, depending on talkpage consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Your evaluation is basically correct. Substack a self-published source, so you have to evaluate each site separately.

We don't need an RfC on every source and editors are generally expected to use their own judgement in keeping with SPS. If a Substack is actually a source with editorial control you can use it without an RfC.

The specific site you linked though is an WP:EXPERTSPS in my view; looking up Bill Bishop indicates he's considered somewhat of an expert.[44][45][46] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:00, 10 November 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. [47][48]. 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.

Sky News caught manipulating footage

I think we really need to be careful with Sky News as a source for the Amsterdam anti-islamic soccer hooligan story in light of their manipulation of film media. [49] Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I heard about that, best not use Canary to source it, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Not suggesting we use Canary as a source in an article. But I think the information in this Canary article casts doubt on the reliability of Sky News and we should avoid using them either. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Marc Owen Jones qualifies as a source. Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

We should be careful about all news reporting. Even those outlets we consider the most reliable. Especially when it comes to breaking stories. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Using news as a source at all should really only be a last resort, if there are essential facts that can't be covered with high quality sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's a link for his article on the topic. [50] Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Why do you say manipulating footage? That makes it sound like they have done something akin to photoshopping, but the linked article talks about some kind of re-cutting of their original segment to give a different weight to certain parts of the story? That sounds more like a charge of bias than of unreliability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Editing videos to support specific narratives while hiding others makes this outlet unreliable. This is, if anything, a case study with one of the main problems with using newsmedia sources for an encyclopedia. But certainly means we should not be using SkyNews in this specific instance as a source. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Did they "edit video" to any degree greater than showing a subset of the events of that night? That would simply be them being selective about what to report. It doesn't make them unreliable for the facts that they have reported. It is completely true that there was antisemitic violence, and Sky News have reported this reliably. That there was also other violence, and wider context, doesn't make what Sky News said unreliable. It makes them biased. That means we should be cautious about inheriting their framing of the situation, but there is no reason not to use them as a source for the fact that there was antisemitic violence. We can use other sources for other facts and perspectives. As far as this board is concerned, there is no downgrade of their reliability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to add on this topic this footage was also misused by several sources:

Here's an article from the NLtimes talking to the photographer who took one of the primary videos being used by major news sources, the video she took involves Maccabi fans assaulting locals and many sources (BILD, CNN, BBCWorld, Guardian, nytimes, TimesofIsrael) have described the footage as locals attacking people instead. Just to keep in mind for the topic. Galdrack (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I would consider the fact they took down and altered a video because it didn't meet their standards to be a quality that makes them an RS rather than saying they 'manipulate' footage. RS should make corrections and alter mistakes. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:When_sources_are_wrong may be appropriate... mostly says unless there is a clear pattern of falsehood, probs not wrong Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note for all, this appears to concern November 2024 Amsterdam attacks. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

And yes, per WP:RSBREAKING, everything written today, yesterday, and the day before should be scrutinized and revisited as better consensus and evaluation of facts and claims emerge, although in most likelihood will never be, as Wikipedians trip over themselves, cosplaying as journalists, to stuff every new development into an article as soon as it pops onto the internet. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

A source Selfstudier (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Journalists make mistakes, it's also hard to put the cat back in the bag once it's out there. I don't think this is an indictment of the outlet. Andre🚐 21:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The Listening Post criticizes NYT and Sky, especially the latter. Marc Owen Jones "This is going to be a case study for journalist students, for media students for years to come, especially the Sky News edit" Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Selina Wamucii, unreliable source

There have been two discussions on the WikiProject Plants talk board about the information on the plant section of the Selina Wamucii website. The first was started by Plantdrew on 5 March 2024 with the title Selina Wamucii: AI generated?. I started the second one on 21 October 2024 under the title Depreciating Selina Wamucii as a source.

In the first discussion it was an initial talk about statements added to Abuta fluminum and Abuta aristeguietae. It was noted at the time that statements made on the website resemble large language model hallucinations.

I started the second discussion because I found additional uses and continued to come across the website when searching the web for information about less well known plant species. I came across the first two of the following three examples doing such searches.

• Elodea bifoliata "small, aquatic plant native to Southeast Asia" later on the same page it lists the native range as "North America". It also says that it can be found in "North America, Europe, and Asia," but POWO does not list it as living outside N. America.
• Penstemon albomarginatus "native to western North America, from British Columbia to California, and grows in moist meadows and open woods." Actually a desert plant confined to the Mojave. Later contradicts itself saying, "drought-tolerant and can thrive in poor soils."
• Carnegiea gigantea "characterized by its large, barrel-shaped stems and white flowers," then later, "large, yellow flowers with five petals and a yellow center." Correctly states that the saguaro is, "native to the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico," but later says, "native to India, Sri Lanka, and parts of Southeast Asia. It can be found in tropical and subtropical forests, as well as in disturbed areas."

More troubling than the obvious contradictions and errors are the subtle ones that may be cited by unaware Wikipedia editors. I have been periodically searching the Wikipedia mainspace for citations to Selina Wamucii. I've found 4 to date and Plantdrew has found 18. This is not a giant flood and the plant project has this under control right now. While there is no organized attempt to promote Selina Wamucii, it would be useful to new editors to be warned in the same way that the system warns about citing a self-published source when adding links or citations. To have less of a chance of a cite that points at selinawamucii.com falling through the cracks.

We may also need to discuss adding a section to Wikipedia:Reliable sources about content that has been generated by large language models in the same way that we have a section on user-generated content. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I very rarely support deprecation but AI hallucinations would be one of the cases where I do. But apart from this source, yeah we should have something on the type more generally. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

If an unreliable source is being keeps getting re-add then deprecation may be appropriate, so that editors are warned about adding it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the source should be deprecated/flagged due to the concerns noted by MtBotany. Though, am uncertain if deprecation would help address the overall issue that there's probably more/other unreliable websites out there that are similar to Selina Wamucii/AI generated that are being used as a source, so would those sites be deprecated as they're identified or is there a way to flag such sites to keep them from being added in the first place? Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that flagging this one site will not address the wider issue. This is an acceleration of the self-published webpage/content mill problem, or at least a first forerunner of it. I have no idea if this is just the first instance noticed or if it might really be the first time such content is being mistaken by editors for a good source. I have really no idea if there is something we should be doing about this right now or if we need to wait for more problems to be noticed. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

At the moment there is little that can be done but handling them one by one. There's no way to identify them en mass, and even if there was there would be little point dealing with sites that are never used for sourcing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

PeakVisor

Is there any indication anywhere that PeakVisor has an editorial process or any experts involved? The website isn't very indicative. The question is about the addition of prominence information at Misti. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

There's some information on their about page[51], and another about it's data sources [52]. It's difficult to be certain but it may be in part be based on user reports, and it's definitely pulling information from OpenStreetMap which is a problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the New American Nation, RS?

I'm reviewing an edit that used, as a source, content from this article from the above named encyclopedia, hosted at encyclopedia.com. It doesn't look good to me, but can anyone tell me if this is an adequate source? VdSV9•♫ 12:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Cox and Finkelman both appear to be qualified professional historians, and Scribner's is a fairly reputable publisher. While We would typically use secondary sources more than tertiary sources, I'm not seeing any issues on the source side of things. Can I ask what has you concerned, VdSV9? What is the claim being supported? As it mentions in the edit notice, the reliability of a source would depend on context, so an indication of what you're seeing as possible red flags would be the most helpful. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I just noticed that I made a mistake before. The editor who made the change I'm reviewing just referenced the URL and Encyclopedia.com, and while scrolling the page I didn't notice that there are two large articles in that link. Part of the content is actually sourced from the article of the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology.

In any case, I found both articles to include some credulous language, making claims like "Tardy de Montravel discovered the transposition of the senses. His somnambule not only walked in the town with her eyes fast closed but could see with the pit of her stomach (see also eyeless sight )." (From the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology) and "Others entered a state of mutual sensation with their mesmerists, and still others exhibited the capacity to read thoughts, to experience religious ecstasy, to see and diagnose illnesses within others, or to make clairvoyant voyages to other cities or planets." (From the Encyclopedia of the New American Nation). That's why I said it doesn't look good to me.

When it comes to context, the editor made a pretty large change to the kardecist spiritism article in Portuguese, but didn't source anything very controversial from the encyclopedia.com articles, so I guess it's fine. Thanks again for your input. VdSV9•♫ 14:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

For a topic like that there's probably a better source, but for now it's fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Is genomicatlas.org reliable?

We need expert Wikipedians in the field of human population genetics, European anthropology and human evolution, or at least molecular biology to determine the reliability of inferences and commentary https://genomicatlas.org makes about highly technical scientific papers. Thanks in advance. isacdaavid 19:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It's an anonymous blog with no WP:USEBYOTHERS that I could find. I don't see how this is in any way reliable. Woodroar (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I would have to agree. I can't find anything about how it operates, or any other reliable sources using it as a citation. Given the subject matter I would suggest finding a better source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS & a quote from a dermatologist

In Torture during the Israel–Hamas war, I added the following passage:

"In September 2024, +972 Magazine reported the spread of scabies among prisoners, with a dermatologist stating that "scabies can be effectively treated, but containing the outbreak requires sanitary living conditions. The failure of the IPS to do so suggests that the spread of the disease among prisoners has become, in effect, a part of their punishment"."

@Andrevan has questioned if "the dermatologist's medical view meets WP:MEDRS" & I was unsure.

As such, I'm asking here to clarify, is this considered a breach of WP:MEDRS? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I also generally don't think 972 magazine would be reliable enough for such an extraordinary claim. Andre🚐 20:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I know, but I wanted clarification in regards to the issue of medical neutrality so I could better handle such cases in the future.

I'm fine with discussing if the claim is WP:DUE in general, but would prefer to do so separately, either at the talk page or in a new section here. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• I find 972 magazine to be reliable, albeit biased, similar to other Israeli sources like Times of Israel. The previous RfC on its reliability seem to have found it to be reliable enough.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Times of Israel AFAIK is a major WP:NEWSORG. 972 appears to be a group of maybe a handful of people, independently operated advocacy nonprofit, practically a blog. I don't see any kind of standard boilerplate stuff or the usual newsorg standards and practices junk, let alone a public editor, ombudsman, or corrections policy. I found an example of a correction from many years ago[53], one from 2015[54], and perhaps many of the editors or journalists there are reliable on their own due to previous bylines. I know it doesn't take much to publish a blog/magazine these days and Wikipedia has significantly liberalized the view of accepting glorified news blogs as occasionally reliable sources, For simple facts, I probably wouldn't have a problem with 972 magazine, but I do think they're out of their depth when making the claim that Israel is intentionally torturing prisoners by effectively deliberately giving them skin conditions. Butterscotch improved the text in the article by attributing it to the dermatologist quoted in the story, but that still seems problematic from a MEDRS perspective. Andre🚐 01:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  My apologies, I shouldn't have compared 972 to Times of Israel.

  Here are some more corrections: 2024, 2022, 2020, 2016. If their article output is lower, than it makes sense their corrections will be infrequent. Moreso if they're a magazine, as opposed to a news organization that rushes to publish before the story is fully known.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems bizarre to use WP:MEDRS, which is mostly about biomedical research, to remove info about humanitarian crisis.

By that logic, we need to remove any source where doctors are stating that the Gaza War's famine and trauma are causing death, as that would be non-peer reviewed assertions by medical professionals. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say fatalities were the domain of medical doctors, but skin conditions are. Andre🚐 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

seems similar, and you're missing the point of the analogy. This is run of the mill testimony of folks in some humanitarian crisis. Its not some biomedical literature or research, and using WP:MEDRS like this is a troubling precedent. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• As a side note, from Scabies#Communities it seems the question of how to contain outbreaks is not a simple one. Bon courage (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

There's probably some way to give the information about the disease outbreak properly but the way this is phrased so sweepingly seems to be somewhat a MEDRS issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this should be treated as a MEDRS issue - I doubt it is saying anything special about Scabies as a disease that you can't control an outbreak of it in unsanitary conditions. Disease, in general, thrives in unsanitary conditions. This seems like a lampshade to remove political comments that go against some editors POVs. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's another question, but strictly speaking what causes or ameloiorates scabies in this location is WP:BMI, and not so simple as the OP's quote makes out.[55][56] Bon courage (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the source originally mentioned in this thread those two sources definitely should be used. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

How should they be used? Both of them predate the Israel–Hamas war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree that this is not BMI and thus MEDRS is not controlling, making DUE the relevant question here. I'd also agree that the original wording, including was being used, carried some implied degree of intentionality, which would require heightened scrutiny towards whether it is actually stated by the source, and whether the attribution is done appropriately. The current wording does not feature such implications, so may be preferable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Physicians for Human Rights (presumably composed of physicians) "submitted one of several petitions to Israel's Supreme Court, warning of the spread of scabies".[57] “The disease is spreading to all prisons, and the prison service is doing nothing...A detainee in Nafha prison received treatment for scabies after a court appeal, but was reinfected within a month because of overcrowding in their cell and no fresh clothing...[Palestinian prisoners are] wearing the same clothes since October. We visited people in January, in the middle of winter, who were wearing the same short-sleeved clothes they had arrived in." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The 972 source says:

"As dermatologist Dr. Ahsan Daka noted in the petition, scabies can be effectively treated, but containing the outbreak requires sanitary living conditions. The failure of the IPS to do so suggests that the spread of the disease among prisoners has become, in effect, a part of their punishment."

It's not entirely clear to me whether that second sentence is something Dr Daka said, or if that's a comment by the article's author; therefore, I'm not sure whether this source is reliable for the second sentence. Also, it's not marked as a quotation in the 972 source, so we should be wary of accidentally putting words in the dermatologist's mouth.

Whether scabies "has become, in effect, a part of their punishment" is not Wikipedia:Biomedical information. That it can be treated effectively and that this requires sanitary living conditions should probably have WP:MEDRS-quality sources.

I also wonder whether it is DUE, etc. I think that a more pointful thing to say would be "Scabies is spreading in the prisons, which some people have likened to torture" rather than "Scabies is a treatable disease". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Gold Derby

Gold Derby is an entertainment/news website that pivoted in 2010 to being a predictions site where users log in and try to predict award categories. It still does some news, which are used as sources on here fairly frequently, and gives out a set of awards that we reference. This award is on its fifth year and is completely fan voted (video at :35-:50). I'd like to ask about use of Gold Derby, since it straddles the line of being news and gambling, and inclusion of the awards (which feels close to user-generated to me). Alyo (chat·edits) 14:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If there any external reporting on the award? If not this appears a WP:DUE concern, rather than reliability. It could be reliably for who won the award, they would know as they awarded it, but just because it can be verified doesn't mean it should be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, and I can have that discussion at the talk page, but my BLPN concern about the award is whether that award counts as WP:USERG. And then I also have broader concerns about the use of a site that exists to facilitate gambling/odds. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Being decided by a popular vote isn't necessarily an issue in itself, for instance the Hugo awards are decided by the attendees of the World Science Fiction Convention. The Hugo's are certainly notable.

It's Gold Derby who give the award, based on the users nominations and votes. They also recently hired an editor-in-chief for awards[58], which would suggest they have at least some kind of control.

The granting of the award is ultimately done by Gold Derby, and that part isn't user-generated. So they should be reliable for who they have bestowed the awards on.

Honestly though I found it difficult to find much information on them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Only note here is that she is EIC of the site as a whole, not specifically for the Gold Derby Awards. But point taken re:popular vote otherwise. As you note, there's little to no coverage of the awards anywhere else, so I tend to think it won't be notable. Any other comments on the news site broadly? Alyo (chat·edits) 23:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

For basic details about award, TV, or media it's should be fine. It's not the highest quality source so I would be cautious with BLP details. It has news reports on its odds and the predictions it's users have made, it's reliable for these but I don't see how they would ever be due for inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Town & Village Guide (UK)

This site at https://www.townandvillageguide.com/ has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Unreliable source? "Town and Village Guide" and considered to be Unreliable for information about UK settlements, with no clear authorship or contact details and possibly AI contributions. Posting this here to feed it into the archive of RSN for future information. It was cited in some 20 en.wiki articles, but has now been removed. PamD 15:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't seem reliable at all, it's just a directory service. If I had a guess it's just pulling data from a Google Maps API (badly even for large towns and cities some of the facilities are in other locales and it is ignoring the ones right in the centre) and fetching some more info based on that. Looks like it's scraped descriptive data from other sites and passed it through an AI interpretation, or just grabbed it straight from ChatGPT or the like. I see no encyclopaedic value in the site whatsoever. Canterbury Tail talk 15:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't find any operating details or any use by other sources. I checked a half dozen location I live near and know well, the text details are often wrong and appear AI generated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Also discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Unreliable_source?_"Town_and_Village_Guide" and the consensus there is it's not reliable. WaggersTALK 10:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

As noted and linked by the OP. In addition to the out by a thousand years information about Cheddar Palace I noted there, I also looked at a few places around London I'm familiar with:

• Canary Wharf: There are lots of sculptures around Canary Wharf but unlike as claimed no singular "Canary Wharf Sculpture" (and none of them particularly notable photo magnets for tourists). The local services results are all in the Elephant and Castle area (except the Regent's Canal, which it states is in Lancashire).
• Waterloo: the nearby locations/facilities are all for Hainford in Norfolk.
• North Woolwich: With one exception (see later) this isn't bad - for the adjacent district of Silvertown. The exception is Thames Barrier Park that apparently has a "large bronze statue of a boy and a girl playing on a seesaw." which is news to me. Googling, it seems there are notable statues matching this description in Veneto, Italy and Kharkiv, Ukraine.
• Loughton. The town is apparently both "on the edge of" and "surrounded by" Epping Forest. Contrary to the third paragraph, it doesn't have "several parks and playgrounds, including the Roding Valley Park and the Loughton Recreation Ground" (the former is in Woodford, the latter doesn't exist), nor are there "several indoor play areas, such as the Kidspace Adventure Playground and the Jump Evolution Trampoline Park." both are in Romford. There are 2-3 supermarkets though, you don't need to travel to Hainault or Chingford.
• Greenwich had no glaring errors though.

Whether it's badly configured scraping and/or AI I don't know, but it's not consistently incorrect, e.g. Greenwich is mostly correct while it thinks Canary Wharf is about 3 miles west of where it is, and Waterloo is ~100 miles to the north east of reality. It's unreliable in multiple senses of that term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I completely missed that Pam had linked the discussion. Sorry Pam! WaggersTALK 13:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Some of these errors are hilarious. I'm going to have to go and look at what they say about my local area now, just for a laugh. WaggersTALK 13:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't resist and have looked at a few more:

• Paddington (specifically Paddington Basin) is apparently home to The Shard, while the area is also home to Paddington Town Hall (demolished 1965). Located directly adjacent to the Westway, Paddington Green is very much not "a peaceful retreat from the hustle and bustle of the city." Local information is all for Warrington, over 150 miles northwest.
• The prose about Westminster is correct but the local information is for the northern suburbs of Nottingham.
• Richmond Palace is not a tourist attraction open to the public for tours - it was almost completely demolished in the 17th Century.
• Axbridge does not have a major, nationally famous carnival in August, it has a small local one in September.
• Wedmore has no museums (not several) and the arts festival happens in May not September.

Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• It's totally unreliable, and I would support deprecation, per most of the above: It's clearly an SPS and probably artificially generated with a complete lack of oversight. Apparently my gaff is "is a truly special place that embodies the spirit of Greater London". It's a shame it has no editor for me, to paraphrase, 🎶let me take them by the hair and lead them through the Kingsmead Estate... 🎶  :) SerialNumber54129 19:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Per discussion at wikiproject Geography. Clearly generated by a broken AI. When it's right, it's more likely because it's like a broken clock than any actual success criteria. We should probably be wary of similar sites generating content for other countries / regions. Koncorde (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Is an overview of a report by market research firm technavio RS for claims on dark chocolate?

Dark Chocolate Market Analysis Europe, North America, APAC, South America, Middle East and Africa - US, Germany, Belgium, France, UK - Size and Forecast 2024-2028

Sourcing multiple sentences, for instance: "As of 2024, Europe was one of the largest producers and the market had grown by over 8 percent since the previous year. About a third of sales were from organic chocolate. The market was influenced by the volatile cost of cocoa beans."

Technavio's market research on dark chocolate has been covered by ConfectioneryNews repeatedly over many years [59]. They have reported specifically on their dark chocolate market research [60]. ConfectioneryNews has an editorial board, on which at least one SME expert, Kristy Leissle serves. Leissle is an academic who publishes on chocolate [61][62] and is the author of Cocoa (book). ConfectioneryNews clearly distinguishes promotional and non-promotional content.

Some concerns regarding the reliability for statements has been raised at Talk:Dark chocolate#Variants section. It's best to read that discussion, but I'll try to sum up the concerns. Zefr will be able to articulate them better.

1. Discusses trends using "marketing language" (i.e. gluten free chocolate, gourmet chocolate markets).
2. The source is "promotional, commercial (crazy expensive), and not WP:RS"
3. Text attributed to technavio, "growing in popularity" is "subjective, non-WP:NPOV, and not sourced to RS."
4. The source discusses what ingredients are commonly used to make gourmet chocolate, but does not explain why, which is necessary.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Animalinformation.com

https://animalinformation.com appears to be entirely AI generated. It was flagged up at WP:AINB and the source removed from five articles. scope_creep^Talk 08:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Having read the discussion at WP:AINB I don't think I have anything to add. The text seems AI generated, I can't find any details of how it operates, or any use by others. Additionally all the sections of the Privacy Policy[63] are titled "Suggested Text:". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Bru Times News

I want to raise something that I noticed. Bru Times News is a Mumbai-based new media newspaper/magazine/whatever. It describes itself as "World's first Ad free news organization". Some of its coverage of India and world topics looks basically ok at my brief glance. It appears to be running biographies of non-notable western individuals such as [64][65]. I don't see any way that this is not paid/vanity coverage. Am I missing something? I am concerned that there have been a large number of new editors making edits that add Bru Times sources of this type to articles, or sourcing articles primarily to such coverage. Perhaps some systematic approach is called for. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The website was, at the very least, developed by a digital marketing firm. Their claims to be the world's first ad-free news organization are also somewhat dubious. I'd suggest it should not be used to establish the notability of a BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORGINDIA seems applicable, especially when an Indian news organisation starts publishing articles about marginally notable people in other countries. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

India Today

This is a WP:BLP issue: The article Gurpatwant Singh Pannun states that "Pannun has claimed responsibility for various terror incidents in India". While Indian authorities may have accused Pannun of being invovled terrorist activities, no credible source quotes him accepting his involvement in any terrorist activity.

The article cites an India Today article which states "Pannun, who usually takes credit for terror attacks in India". However, the article does not quote Pannun or any other sources, nor does it provide any instances of the alleged terror attacks for which he has allegedly taken credit. There are other sources which state that Pannun denies being a terrorist (e.g. BBC - "India has labelled Pannun a terrorist, though he denies the allegation").

An edit request on the article's talk page was rejected with the statement that India Today is "a fairly credible source": Talk:Gurpatwant Singh Pannun#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_13_December_2023.

However, India Today is not exactly a beacon of journalism, as evident by this news article published less than a week ago: Free speech champion Canada bans news outlet for airing Jaishankar presser. It has simply regurgitated a lie spread by the India's Ministry of External Affairs, which has been debunked: No, Canada Did Not Block FB Page Of Australia Today Over S Jaishankar's Remarks.

TIME, a far more reliable source, interviewed Pannun, and quotes him as saying: "I will not respond back with violence. I will not use a bullet. I will never incite the people of Punjab who are working with me to go and take violence as the path. Because that is exactly what I'm fighting. We are fighting India’s violence with votes."

Earlier India Today accused Pannun of threatening Air India: "Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun on Monday warned passengers not to fly on Air India flights from November 1 to 19. He asserted that an attack could take place on an Air India flight during the specified dates, which coincide with the "40th anniversary of the Sikh genocide". The founder of Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), who holds dual citizenship in Canada and the US, had issued a similar threat around the same time last year. Pannun's fresh threat comes amid several airlines in India receiving multiple threat calls about potential bombings".

Pannun has never threatened any bombings. As quoted in TIME: "I was saying "boycott” Air India, but the whole Indian narrative shifted to bomb Air India. Somebody has to be a zombie to not differentiate between boycotting and bombing."

Can others please pitch in on whether an unattributed statement from an India Today article should be used as a source to assert that a living person has claimed responsibility for unspecified terror attacks? 2607:FEA8:5943:3700:88A6:FE39:EB3B:5013 (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be about a claim in a source than the reliability of the source itself. Usually WP:ATTRIBUTION helps deal with what you are talking about. Though I see there are sources after "Pannun has claimed responsibility for various terror incidents in India" on him going into hiding after some deaths have occurred, if that particular claim of him taking responsibility for attacks is unsourced, then the sentence can be removed. As that would be WP:OR or WP:SYN. However, I do the that the India today article s does say "Pannun, who usually takes credit for terror attacks in India, has been silent on the killing of the two terrorists besides the mysterious death of Avatar Singh Khanda." I did find a BBC article that has a caption that says "India designated Gurpatwant Singh Pannun a terrorist in 2020" and "Delhi has made no bones about its dislike for the Sikh separatist - a man they designated a terrorist in 2020. He is wanted in nearly two dozen cases, including some of terrorism and sedition, and in September, his properties in Amritsar and Chandigarh cities were seized. Pannun denies all the charges and says the cases are false." [66]. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Denofgeek.com

Is the website Denofgeek.com ([67]) a suitable source on Wikipedia? I see that it's being used to support genres on the article Purple Rain (song), and a search of Wikipedia ([68]) shows that it is currently being used on thousands of articles. Their staff page ([69]) shows multiple writers, many of whom have credentials -- certainly a promising sign -- but given that this website has not been thoroughly discussed on Wikipedia previously, I do want to open up discussion here to know what others think about the potential reliability of this site. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a pretty shabby source. Like it's a pop-culture website - these are a dime a dozen and rarely have particularly strong editorial controls beyond algorithm chasing. It might be reliable enough for low-risk statements of fact like "Purple Rain is a pop song" or whatever. But I would hesitate to treat any opinion it generates as WP:DUE and I wouldn't use a pop-culture churn site to establish notability. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I would note that the article used in Purple Rain (song) does not appear to exist as it's pointing to a dead link. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Also there's a fair bit of WP:SYNTH coming from Denofgeek.com citations such as this: [70] to support general structural changes to Doctor Who that are not explicitly stated in the accompanying article. However that's neither here nor there for the outlet's reliability as it's to do with use of the material rather than the material itself. Still, it's a problem. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it not really just a blog? Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It's listed as a reliable source by WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources, linking to several prior discussions. So, probably good for media stuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Even for video games I'd be hesitant to use them to establish notability. They're a content churn - they comment on basically every game at some point. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking further into this source, I honestly concur with User:Simonm223. This site very much strikes me as a content farm, seems comparable to churnalist bilge like WhatCulture (see WP:WHATCULTURE at RSP) and other "Top 10 [fill in the blank]" listicle variants (see also: Boredpanda, Listverse, et al). Another comparison point is WatchMojo, which is not listed on RSP but has been found to be unreliable in prior RSN discussions. Denofgeek strikes me as being in the exact same boat, and it leads me to believe that the source is unreliable for statements of fact, and WP:UNDUE for attributions of opinion. In particular, should be nowhere near BLP articles. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I went and removed it from ten BLP articles. While I will shy away from removing it from non-BLP articles due to a lack of consensus here so far, I firmly do not believe it has any place on BLPs given the very strict sourcing for those articles per WP:BLP. I would also recommend nobody restore the citations of the site on BLPs that I removed, because of the sensitivity surrounding such articles. JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Whatever happens it should be brought up at the VG project since their list is fairly influential in what people deem a reliable source in media areas. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Alerted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Discussion at RSN. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the previous discussions on Den of Geek (Which can be found at the WP:VG sourcing list) there seems to be a general consensus that their staff is experienced and they have solid editorial standards. I've used Den of Geek extensively in the past, and their content tends to be of a relatively high quality, especially compared to content farm sites like Screen Rant and Game Rant, which are far less consistently detailed and accurate compared to Den of Geek. In terms of pop culture content, they're one of the higher quality sources I've seen all things considered, and nearly everything I've cited them for I'd call relatively in-depth and strong coverage.

I'm not saying Den of Geek is a paragon of sourcing, but its content is good and there's no significant issues with its staff and standards, at least from what I can find. I wouldn't be opposed to a restriction on BLPs given I never see it covering it BLP-related topics anyway, but I'll leave that up to discussion from other editors who are also familiar with Den of Geek's content. I feel it's reliable, but perhaps with a comment saying its usage in BLP-related articles should be shied away from depending on how further discussion goes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I second everything that Pokelego said. This feels like people are just using "content farm/churn" as a buzzword without actually looking into the site and/or actually using it as a source. WP:VG has considered them reliable for a while now with no problems. And if there's really concerns about how they look like a "content farm", I would like to bring up that any online source can produce low-quality content. I do not think there is any reason to downplay a site that ticks all of the boxes we desire in a reliable source (staff team with valid credentials and past experience, editorial policy, etc) because they sometimes can produce content that any site can, and probably has in the past, produce. As for BLP issues, once again, any site can make material that could be deemed unfit for usage to source for a BLP. But their good content absolutely outweighs whatever bad content they have made in the past (which I'm yet to see examples of), as is the case with sites like IGN (look at earlier IGN articles and/or their game guide content to get what I'm referring to). I say the site is reliable. λ NegativeMP1 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that Den of Geek cannot be reasonably described as churnalism. As a personal anecdote, I once searched Dexerto for good sources to use on a regular basis, but eventually, I came to decide that the content they produce is consistently of low quality and/or churned out, and stopped searching Dexerto. Conversely, I do not find Den of Geek producing anywhere near what I would consider a disqualifying amount of churn or low-quality content. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Infowars

Seeing as The Onion now owns Infowars, should the rating be changed seeing as it's unlikely that it remain a far-right fake news site? Tavantius (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

They plan to turn it into a parody site, so it still wouldn't be a reliable source.

The satirical news site planned to turn Infowars into a parody of itself, mocking “weird internet personalities” who peddle conspiracy theories and health supplements.[71]

Schazjmd (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I know. That's why I was asking if its rating would be changed to The Onion's rating. Tavantius (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The Onion is not a reliable source either. Vegan416 (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Onion should never be used unless we are trying to link to something it published itself. Same with infowars. Not reliable for anything except when if we wanna say "the onion published a satirical piece", and even then questions of WP:DUE/notability probs would matter. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

For verification purposes very little will change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The one thing to watch out for would be merry pranksters using the new Infowars for WP:ABOUTSELF claims about Alex Jones. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Very good point, and given it's The Onion quite likely. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Description at WP:RSP should probably be updated, but seeing as The Onion is also GUNREL, the rating won't change. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait: the purchase only happened today, so it is unclear what InfoWars will exactly become under The Onion. In my opinion, I did not expect The Onion to be the buyer, considering how Elon Musk would pay $44 billion for Twitter/X. --Minoa (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, we would need to keep its history rating for its past material... which I suspect may not survive onto the new site, but likely exists at archive sites. Given what The Onion has announced as their plans, it seems unlikely that the site will host anything usable; it would even be a problem for WP:ABOUTSELF, given The Onion's own announcement of the purchase. However, the Onion has operated The A.V. Club, which is often lighthearted but traffics in truth rather than satire, so we cannot simply assume what the rating for a site will be based on The Onion's ownership.

COI notice: I subscribe to the physical edition of The Onion, so it was really my money which made this all possible. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The Onion does not yet own Infowars, as the sale has not yet been consummated, and the sale has been put on hold, so any change is premature. John M Baker (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

  My feeling is that the recent discussion at COIN (here [72]), 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)

Sentientism

The reliability of the website on sentientism [73] has been raised on the Sentientism talk-page. Sentientism.info is a website operated by Jamie Woodhouse (he's on Wikipedia under his own name [74]). He created the sentientists category and has a large list of sentientists on his website that he has interviewed [75]. The website hosts a podcast, is involved in activism and contains some historical information about sentientism.

I am not sure if this website passes WP:RS. As explained on the talk-page my suspicion is that this is a kind of WP:Advocacy website. Any comments would useful about if this source can be used on Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Just for context, the question is about whether to say in the article that Andrew Linzey coined the term "sentientism" in 1980. This is exactly what is said in the Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare (page 311). There is this paper though that says that it was coined by John Rodman in 1977. And this FAQ from the website Sentientism that points to this (paywalled) article, saying it was coined in 1975. The alternative to saying that Andrew Linzey coined the term in 1980 would be to omit the sentence, or to soften the claim (e.g., saying that he "popularized" the term or was "among the first ones" to use it). Alenoach (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure it really makes a difference for the debate whether the website sentientism is a reliable source. It can probably be considered a self-published source, I agree on that. But it just claims that the word "sentientism" was used in the 1975 paper. So perhaps a third opinion would have been a better and more lightweight way to settle this debate. Alenoach (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it’s a self-published source? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:28, 15 November 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)

• 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,

• [76] the Hitler of our time, Benjamin Netanyahu
• [77] the Zionist invaders are incapable of facing men of God directly (in their own voice, not marked as opinion or anything)
• [78] 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"[79], 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

• "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)

narod.hr

This Croatian news portal (currently being used by several newish editors to cite articles on the Balkan Wars of the 90s, was identified several years ago by the left-leaning Novosti Croatian Serb news magazine as an "extreme right-wing portal known for spreading of Ustasha mythology in the daily "cultural" column." The same 2021 article (here) also claims the editor of narod.hr is a former hr WP administrator from the pre-2021 period when hr WP was highly questionable (with all that entails). This story was also carried by the Croatian Index.hr online newspaper here. The narod.hr news portal is run by an highly conservative organisation called “U ime Obitelji” (which translates as "In the Name of the Family"). It seems to me that narod.hr cannot be considered a reliable news source on the highly controversial wars of the 90s in the Balkans. Interested in the views of the community on this. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)