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

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

---

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[1] are titled "Suggested Text:". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Cheung et al in Archives of Disease in Childhood

At Cass Review we are having a dispute about this source:

Cheung CR, Abbruzzese E, Lockhart E, et al Gender medicine and the Cass Review: why medicine and the law make poor bedfellows Archives of Disease in Childhood Published Online First: 14 October 2024. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2024-327994

https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/10/15/archdischild-2024-327994

Some editors have argued that because one of the co-authors, Evgenia Abbruzzese, is also the co-founder of the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, the source should be regarded as FRINGE. Is this correct? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Short answer on the specific question of whether one odd ball amongst the authors immediately disqualifies a source, no it doesn't. That's not to say there couldn't be other issue with the paper, which would require comments from edits with better WP:MEDRS knowledge, but just because one odd ball was amongst the authors doesn't immediately mean their odd ball believes are in the paper. The other authors, and the editors, may well have smooth them out or ensured they stayed within more normal academic ranges.

There are scientists and academics who believe all kinds of things, including opinions that would controversial or laughy in their own fields, who yet still publish well regarded work in that field because those specific works don't involve the controversial opinions they hold. So disqualifying a whole work by multiple author because of one of the authors is dubious doesn't work.

Again I'm not saying that the paper is reliable, but that that argument against it is flawed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

An author being blatantly out there on the fringe is a red flag that we can't ignore. What exactly we do with that information is up for debate, but "neglect it" is not a feasible option. XOR'easter (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

XOR'easter I'm not sure how this answers the question.

• Do you believe Abbruzese's participation alone disqualifies this source?
• If "yes" can you address ActivelyDisinterested's remarks above, specifically There are scientists and academics who believe all kinds of things, including opinions that would controversial or laughy in their own fields, who yet still publish well regarded work in that field because those specific works don't involve the controversial opinions they hold and why you think that doesn't hold here.

FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, does anyone know if Abbruzzese has published other works besides this one outside of SEGM circles? Whether other researchers have commented on said body of work, that would be a good indicator of publish well regarded work, but I'm having trouble filtering out the other E. Abbruzzeses like Elvira etc from Evgenia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't regard Abbruzzese a reliable source, but they are one of seven authors for this article. I would suggest looking to the quality of the article, rather than fixating on one author. As XOR'easter points out it should be part of any discussion, but it's not the whole discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I am aware, it just would have been nice to have a body of work to look at whether it is indeed well regarded, but I'm to lazy to actually look any of them up, especially for the authors that actually do have publications. Though, there are only 5 authors, you might be counting the number of affiliations? That got me a bit too. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

1) Addressing the other authors: none have ever published any research on transgender care or have any experience with it

2) Addressing a glaring issue with the source: right off the bat they misrepresent trans healthcare in the US while situating the Yale Review in the same way SEGM does (ie, framing their position as more accepted than it is)

• Ultimately, these cases hinge on judges deciding between two conflicting perspectives. One side, argued by transgender advocacy groups and supported by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)22 and the Endocrine Society,23 asserts that medical transition for minors is backed by sufficient evidence, making restrictions unnecessary and discriminatory. On the other side, some states claim the practice is experimental, harmful to youth and that the constitution allows them to protect citizens from unsafe medical treatments.
• They say "transgender advocacy groups", WPATH, and the Endocrine Society support it and states don't - they don't mention every single medical association in the US has opposed these bans - for example the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Urological Association, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, American College of Physicians, and American Association of Clinical Endocrinology.[2] Not to mention the American Psychological Association[3], American Psychiatric Association and more.[4]
• It doesn't mention all the states doing so have done so at the behest of Christian Right anti-LGBT groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, American College of Pediatricians, and, shocking nobody, SEGM.

3) Relatedly, they extend this critique to arguing the authors of the Yale review are politically motivated as they testify against bans on gender-affirming care - ignoring that this is supported by all major medical orgs in the US.

4) The Yale Review called out multiple false statements the Cass Review made (ie: "most trans kids grow out of it") - this supposed review of their critique fails to address a single one.

5) SEGM is treating this review as a total refutation of the Yale Report, claiming the Cass Review is holy and untouchable while hoping U.S. medical organizations and prestigious universities will resist the powerful special interests who have leveraged these institutions' highly-regarded names and hard-earned reputations to shield the practice of youth gender transition (emphasis added)[5] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I am only asking specifically as to whether Abbruzese's participation as an author is enough to disqualify the source as FRINGE, according to current WP policy. I am not currently asking about any other proposed reasons to exclude the source. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If the question is specifically about FRINGE, FRINGEN would seem to be a noticeboard more suited to the question at hand. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Outside of assessing a news source in general, where we look at the pattern of reliability of that news source.

When we look for reliability of specific articles as references, we don't generally evaluate articles only in isolation (or as you asked, only on the premise of if an authors involvement means we don't also may have other reasons to judge an article for neutrality and reliability), but also in the WP:RS#Reliability in specific contexts/Wikipedia:Inaccuracy#Appendix: Reliability in the context for which it is being planned for inclusion to better assess, which is why @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist posted additional relevant information for this particular article. Raladic (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

As an(other) aside, even if a source were FRINGE it wouldn't necessarily be outright excluded, as long as it is put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field. Whether a source is suitable always depends on how it is used. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you can isolate the issues like that. The issue with Abbruzese's participation is whether it impacts the quality of the source, right? So if the source is of poor quality in ways indicative of SEGM's WP:FRINGE influence, that would suggest that Abbruzese's participation was in fact a problem, right? Loki (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

To elaborate on what I said on the talk page: while one of the authors being dodgy is not always enough to discredit a peer-reviewed paper, it can be sometimes. It is heavily dependent on context, though. So for instance: if a Pioneer Fund person published some research on race and intelligence I'd consider that basically disqualifying by itself. But even though James Watson has made some significantly racist comments, that doesn't make the original Watson and Crick paper any less credible.

For this reason I'd like to hold off on this source until its credibility is clearer. I'm not saying it's definitely bad, but I'm quite suspicious of it. Loki (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The other authors hold some important positions, but have varying or little amounts of publishing in the area, for me that's more an issue than one author being a crank. However that one of the authors is a crank as well other issues makes your suspicious understandable. Seeing how other academic sources respond to the paper is likely a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s actually a problem that the authors aren’t specialists in transgender healthcare — if you read Cheung et al, it’s really responding to criticisms of the research and medical evaluation practices in the Cass Review and the York systematic reviews, which are a higher level question that experienced researchers in any medical field would be qualified to comment on. This also makes Cheung et al part of a broader consensus rather than a single fringey source: it’s concurring with and defending a very large and high profile scholarly work in the field.

I think it would be wrong to present Cheung as a slam-dunk final word on the issue but the field of youth gender medicine is in the midst of deep, genuine controversy among the best reliable sources. That controversy should be presented neutrally to readers; the effort to decide which side is ‘fringe’ and suppress all sources favourable to it is highly inappropriate in this context. Frank Forfolk (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No, this is not a fringe source. As others have pointed out, the contributions of one questionable author, who isn't even the lead author, do not invalidate the contents of a paper, particularly when it is published and peer-reviewed in a mainstream journal.

This subject is in the midst of a paradigm shift from consensus-based to evidence-based medicine. As of right now there are two competing mainstream POVs. Both vigorously attempt to refute each other, but NPOV demands our articles represent them both. It is not the role of editors here to pick the correct POV. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:22, 9 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. [6] [7] [8].
• 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. [9]
• In 2020, Reuters revealed that the Jerusalem Post allowed an online deepfake to write bylines smearing a Palestinian couple over their activism. [10] 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,[11] 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. [12] 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.[13]

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

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. [14] The Jerusalem Post is being hyperbolically biased in a way that is impossible to cite on Wikipedia. We should apply the same standard we apply to all sources. If Mondoweiss is going to be Option 2, I can live with that so long as the standards are consistently applied.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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".[16] Should Al-Jazeera also be WP:MREL on Israel and Palestine?

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

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

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

  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 [17], 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: [18] [19] [20] [21]. --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" [22] and, later, "No Correction by the Jerusalem Post" [23]
• 2019: "Jerusalem Post article makes premature claim on 'first complete cure for cancer', overstates research significance" according to WP:IFCN fact checker [24]
• 2020 COVID article found "misleading" also by WP:IFCN fact checker [25]
• 2020: "Jerusalem Post took government money to publish anti-BDS special", +972 [26]
• 2023: the Forward article about pay-to-play discussed by others above [27]

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

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)

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, [28][29][30][31]. 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 [32] 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)

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)

Is the following statement WP:RSOPINION?

Hello. We are stuck in a disputation where the other side, in my view, is sabotaging the edit for political reasons (I will lay down). I argued that my edit is WP:RSOPINION but they state that the source is not reliable and the edit is irrelevant to WP:RSOPINION. I am here to ask for external parties. Here is the edit and the sources (Text that is in contention is in bold and underlined):

Buniyatov writes that the descendants of Khwarazmians call themselves Turkmens and they reside in the Musul and Kirkuk, the North of Iraq. Buniyatov further mentions that the descendants of Khwarazmians that call themselves Turkmens are referred to as Khurzumlular in Anatolia and there are 8 villages in Manisa, Turkey where Khurzumlular live as society. The official website of the Gölhisar District Governorship also talk of the local Turkmens being descendants of Khwarazmshahs.

The source: Buniyatov, Z. The State of Khwarazmshah-Anushteginids. 1097—1231 М., 1986. page 159.

What is more interesting is that, the article we have this disputation is still having the source I cited here, the source adversaries claim that "unreliable", even for narrating author's opinion.

Note that, I am asking if that part is RS:OPINION or not. I am not asking if it warrants inclusion into the article or if it is notable or reliable for factual claims. I am using the source to re-narrate the author's view. I told the adversaries that they can oppose me under due credit (due weight) criteria and if they want I can add more sources that cover the same topic but re-iterated that the edit is WP:RSOPINION but they are ignoring it stating that the source is not reliable as a statement as author's opinion.

As for political agenda part: I know it from my native wiki (Turkish) that the empire is claimed by both Turkmens and Uzbeks. Turkmens and Uzbeks often fight in our Wiki to claim that the Empire is theirs. This is the reason I thought they are sabotaging my edit: they might be from the other side of the contention.--176.88.165.232 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC) 176.88.165.232 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: I shall also state that I later realited that I was using different publication of the same book. Page may vary but that can be updated. What the other side doing is that they are dismissing the book and the edit, stating it is not WP:RSOPINION, stating that the book is not reliable for author's opinion. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not a general forum, but only for discussing the reliability of sources, so I'm going to ignore your comments on user conduct. I would warn you though that assuming good faith is always the best option.

WP:RSOPINION says Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, so it's not an immediately given that all such sources will be reliable for opinion. If the author is unreliable then it would follow that their opinion is also unreliable. Basically, simply adding "So-and-so said" doesn't sidestep reliability. Buniyatov specifically has obviously received some harsh criticism, I would be hesitant to consider them reliable.

Secondarily note even if it is reliable for the author opinion that doesn't mean it has to be included, all content that is included must be verifiable but verification doesn't guarantee inclusion. From the articles talk page it appears the other editors are against inclusion, so whether it's reliable or unreliable may not matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for participating. Let us first settle if the statement I contributed is WP:RSOPINION (even if the author is unreliable).

Narrating certain author's opinion by quoting from their own book is WP:RSOPINION, right? No matter if the author is reliable or not, talk about the format of the text: is that WP:RSOPINION as it is from the book of the author.

While I grant that the author could be unreliable, my question here is if the format of the statement meets WP:RSOPINION. As I noted already, IIRC, in our first ever talk-page discussion, I said them "you could oppose this under due credit criteria". As the author might be unreliable, my initial edit came with an official website statement of a district governorship which can corraborate the seemingly-unreliable author + I told them that I can add more from different source.

But please, let us settle down this issue first: is that edit WP:RSOPINION? Note again: I am not arguing RSOPINION warrants icnlusion or sufficient to be included or warrants reliability. 176.88.165.232 (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said RSOPINION isn't a free pass, and neither is changing a statement from a factual statement in wikivoice to ab attributed opinion. If an author is not reliable on a subject, then that authors opinion is also unreliable on that subject for the purposes of RSOPINION.

This may depend on context. For a silly example David Ike's opinion that the British royal family are lizard people wouldn't be reliable in the article about the British royal family, but could be reliable to show his own opinions in the article about David Ike. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I have re-iterated many times that I am not asking if it warrants inclusion into the article. All I asked is if that statement is RSOPINION or not: why do people avoid answering it?

Why not answer: "no, it is not RSOPINION. because such and such" or "yes, it is RSOPINION but it lacks due weight/notability" etc?

No one has answered it explicitly and verbatimly.

Your example of David Ike is RSOPINION but including his view into the royal family article would be subject of due weight and proportional representation issue but not reliability issue if his opinion is being narrated. The only issue would be if it is worth putting his opinion into the article. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I have not avoided answering it, I have answered not twice. I'll answer it again, the opinion of an author who is not reliable on a subject is not reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You have not answered: the question was not reliability of an opinion and RSOPINION is not about reliability of an opinion but reliability of source. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I've given my opinion on the situation, I'll leave it and see if anyone else has one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

My take on it is that RSOPINION says "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact." So the first question is: is the claim that you're attributing to the author a factual issue (i.e., it has a true or false assessment) or is it instead non-factual (a matter of opinion, where you'd say "I share that view" rather than "that's true" or "that's false"). The information that you've attributed to Buniyatov looks to me like it's true or false, so RSOPINION doesn't apply. That you attribute the claim to Buniyatov doesn't turn it into an opinion. Either Buniyatov is a reliable source for the factual claim or he isn't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Unbelievable. I do hope you will accept your previously pined for fifth opinion, and at least ensure that this timesink for everyone trying to explain this to you actually had a point.Remsense ‥ 论 23:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

but my edit was narrating author's opinion: so, it was RSOPINION. The true or false part of that statement is if it is fact that Buniyatov said those statement. That I attribute Buniyatov's opinion into Buniyatov's book turns it into RSOPINION. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, each editor that has taken the time to reply to you so far has explained that your interpretation of WP:RSOPINION is plainly wrong, for more or less the same reasons.

I will be blunt. I want a yes or no answer here: is it at all possible for you to acknowledge merit in a response that doesn't agree with your premise here? I want you to state that upfront, because others shouldn't have to spend even more time articulating replies to you, trying to point out what we see as the same glaring errors in your reasoning, if you are only going to meaningfully engage when you think someone agrees with you. That is not fair. Remsense ‥ 论 09:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is possible and happened: This edit of mine where I conceded a point to Airshipjungleman29 is an example, out of many.

It is your turn: I ask you the same question. I want a yes or no answer, with an example if possible. 176.88.165.232 (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I'm asking about. I want you to divulge whether you are capable of moving on from your central premise at any point, or if you will argue it (not details like you've linked) in the same manner no matter how many editors tell you you're wrong. I don't have that problem, but I would certainly be given new information to ponder if a single other person agreed with you and added new perspectives to consider. Remsense ‥ 论 21:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

While I think that counts for what you asked, I can answer again: In that example, I have moved from my central premise: I immediately acknowledged that if anything, that edit of mine could go into another article, not the one I made that edit to.

As for "no matter how many editors tell you you're wrong", not a single one of you elaborate your answers: you just dissmiss it, misinterpolating Wikipolicies: when I asked you (not just you alone, all 4-5 of you) to quote, you evade the question. where I have been quoting regularly. Here again, some of them:

1. "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. "
2. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact"

176.88.165.232 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

but my edit was narrating author's opinion No, your edit was describing the author's T/F statement, not his opinion. If John claims that 2+2=5, that's not John's opinion, that's John's false claim. (2+2=5) is false. (John said that 2+2=5) is true. Neither statement in parentheses is an opinion. Attributing a T/F statement to someone doesn't turn it into an opinion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No, my edit was describing author's opinion. Your mistake is that you think facts (T/F statements) and opinions are intrinsically antonyms while they are not: you can have an opinion that also is a fact or an opinion that is not a fact or a fact that is not an opinion --176.88.165.232 (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You know what, I'm really going to put my foot down here. Literally every statement you want to ascribe to Buniyatov is a statement of fact that he is making, not his opinion:

• Either the descendants of Khwarazmians call themselves Turkmens, or they do not.
• Either they reside in the Musul and Kirkuk, or they do not.
• Either the descendants of Khwarazmians that call themselves Turkmens are referred to as Khurzumlular in Anatolia, or they are not.
• Either there are 8 villages in Manisa, Turkey where Khurzumlular live, or there are not.

Please acknowledge that these are statements of fact, that they can be empirically determined to be true or false, and that there is nothing subjective or abstract about them. You attributing them to an individual means they are attributed statements of fact, and not opinions. Remsense ‥ 论 22:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You know what, I am really going to put my foot down here. Literally, every statement you want to present as factual is actually opinional:

• Either Buniyatov wrote that the descendants of Khwarazmians call themselves Turkmens, or he did not write.
• Either Buniyatov wrote that they reside in the Musul and Kirkuk, or he did not write.
• Either Buniyatov wrote that the descendants of Khwarazmians that call themselves Turkmens are referred to as Khurzumlular in Anatolia, or he did not write.
• Either Buniyatov wrote that there are 8 villages in Manisa, Turkey where Khurzumlular live, or he did not write.

Please, acknowledge that these statements attributed to Buniyatov is really by him or not.

As for the rest of your mistake, the one that strikes the most is the following part: these are statements of fact, that they can be empirically determined to be true or false - Inclusion into Wiki does not require the text to be a statement of fact that can be empirically determined to be true or false. Quick demo: from the same article, I will list just 1 sentence either have it deleted or prove it empirically: "Gurganj is a very beautiful city, surrounded by the attention of angels who represent the city in paradise just like a bride in a groom's house."

So, stick to your persistence and delete it, please or just acknowledge what you are doing is biased selection --176.88.165.232 (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, WP:NEWSOPED also debunks your mistake: "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. " As well as "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact"

Even biased sources can in some contexts be included: WP:BIASED 176.88.165.232 (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

These are statements of fact that can be empirically determined to be true or false, not editorial analysis or opinion. Remsense ‥ 论 22:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

you think facts (T/F statements) and opinions are intrinsically antonyms No, I don't. Among other things, "fact" is not the same as "T/F statement". If a statement is false, or if the truth-value is not known, it's definitely not a fact, though some might mistakenly treat it as a fact. I also don't treat "a factual issue" (in my first comment) as a synonym for "a fact." As for your quotes, they come from a section titled "Editorial and opinion commentary." To be clear, an editorial/opinion piece generally consists of several paragraphs, and those paragraphs might include some facts along with the author's opinions. And Buniyatov's book wasn't published as WP:NEWSOPED, so that section doesn't apply here. Even biased sources can in some contexts be included. Yup. But that doesn't imply that this source can be. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

(I'm suddenly wondering whether your username is going to help or hurt matters here.) Remsense ‥ 论 22:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The IP editor has had a (what I take from reading the talk page) fifth and sixth opinion on the subject. I don't believe any further input will help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

These are the statements of fact that can be empirically determined to be true of false:

• Buniyatov wrote that the descendants of Khwarezmians identify themselves as Turkmens: True or False?

176.88.165.232 (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless I read the book, I have no way of determining whether "Buniyatov wrote that the descendants of Khwarezmians identify themselves as Turkmens" is true or is instead false, and I'm certainly not going to go get a copy of the book and read it simply because you want me to determine the truth-value of your claim. Since I know nothing about the Khwarazmian Empire, I also can't say whether "the descendants of Khwarezmians identify themselves as Turkmens" is true or is instead false. What I do know is that whatever the truth-value of those two quoted statements, neither is an opinion. I already pointed out: Attributing a T/F statement to someone doesn't turn it into an opinion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You actually have not read Wikipolicies, have you? Even WP:NEWSOPED applies here as WP:RSOPINION clearly state the following: A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. RSOPINION overlaps with NEWSOPED and others.

Buniyatov's book does not need to be NEWSOPED as the mention of newsoped was not for Buniyatov's book but for your assertions of T/F or opinion sentences being included with reliable sources. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I've read the relevant policy, and it seems I understand it better than you do. Even WP:NEWSOPED applies here No, it doesn't; it only applies to editorial and opinion commentary in news publications, and that's not what we're talking about. RSOPINION overlaps with NEWSOPED Perhaps you don't understand sets well enough. If {A} is a subset of {B}, that does not imply that the features that characterize all of the elements of {A} also characterize all of the elements of {B}. More to the point, as I already pointed out to you, That you attribute the [T/F] claim to Buniyatov doesn't turn it into an opinion, so WP:RSOPINION doesn't apply here either. your assertions of T/F or opinion sentences being included with reliable sources I have no idea what assertions of mine you're talking about, since you didn't quote them. A reminder: you titled this section "Is the following statement WP:RSOPINION?" You've had several people tell you "no." At this point, this is a case of WP:LISTEN FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

References

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 [33]. 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.[34] 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 [35], 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 [36]; in a Taylor & Francis publication, link [37]; in a Brill publication, link [38] 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: [39] 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.[40][41] 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 ([42]), 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[43][44].

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[45]. Snakester95 (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hindu News

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

---

Recently, I came to know about the Hindu News website. It's main page states that "HiINDUNEWS.STREAM is the only news channel which pulls no punches when it comes to defending true Hinduism against the intellectual foolishness of the Khan Market Gang and the spineless IAS 'baboo'ns and fawning IFS buffoons who surround them. Our valued subscribers have no hesitation in NAMING and SHAMING the enemies of True Hinduism and ranking them in order of their un-Hinduness.". Do you think it should be included on Wikipedia as a source. A IP user wants to include this source on The Satanic Verses article. (The user is also sort of threatening legal action against WMF). What do you think is the best course of action ? ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 15:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I’ve also started a discussion about two other sources of information, so I’d also like to let your voice heard and leave my comment. This seems like a biased page that has no place in Wikipedia, and should be considered as an unreliable source. Unfortunately, I’m not an administrator or a major person on Wikipedia, so I can’t punish the person for using unreliable sources of information, but I hope that some admins will see this discussion and decide to do the required punishment on the user. Hadjnix 15:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that does not look like a reliable source. It looks like somebody's blog. And an amateur one at that. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest reporting the legal threat to WP:AN/I. Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

In so far as this so-called "legal threat" goes. I was merely reminding my young friend that the last time the editors of Wikipedia described an Indian news organisation (ANI) as "unreliable", it resulted in a hugely problematic defamation suit against WMF which they are struggling to cope with. A word to the wise, HINDUNEWS.STREAM is cut from the same cloth as ANI.49.36.183.242 (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The reliability of a source depends on its context. What specifically is wrong with the reporting in the news report ? Is anything in it inaccurate ? 49.36.183.242 (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Actualy it depends on having a reputation for accuracy. Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes the news organization HINDUNEWS.STREAM has an excellent reputation for accuracy since it has over 12 million subscribers, including myself. What is published on the "blog" are certain (a very few) public records of private actions of its subscribers against the "Khan Market Gang". It is a fortnightly periodical and there are no complaints against its reporting anywhere. 49.36.183.242 (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That landing page hasn't been updated in over a year. I really don't think we should be treating this as a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The number of scribers is irrelavnt, what matters is its reputation among other RS. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That's how it looks to me too. Not a lot of on-WP presence:[46]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Not all instances of "Hindu News" is the same as hindunews.stream, it's anything but a unique name. It's currently not used in any article, the only other current use I can find is in a talk page archive. Where it was used by an IP with a similar style of making legal threats. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I had just this issue trying to find anything about them, it's not a unique enough name. In fact it seems to have no meaningful presence. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

That seems correct, my hit was actually something else. Can't find any discussion on it outside this thread either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: hindunews.stream: 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

Hello.

I am Shymal from Hindu Raksha Dal. Our CEO Dr. Rajendra Singh Dalvi is the publisher of Hindu News subscription website from Germany (Europe).

Dr. Dalvi has received information from our subscriber in India that some users of Wikipedia are publicly discussing describing our website as an unreliable news source.

We sincerely hope that no such derogatory description or discussion is published on any Wikimedia Foundation hosted website.

It is very strongly urged that this entire discussion be removed from public view and referred, if at all, to the Wikimedia Foundation Inc, specifically to Mr. Stephen LaPorte (General Counsel WMF), who is personally aware of our past concerns and our action-reaction pairs.

Have a nice day. 47.31.153.39 (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Shymal. The discussion here isn't whether hindunews.steam is reliable or not in general or about the character of hindunews.steam, this isn't an article about Hindu News. This is a discussion about whether or not using hindunews.steam for verification purposes matches wikipedia's policy and guidelines. If you wish to discuss the matter with the WMF you may do so, but this discussion will remain. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

So (as you are here), a website, not a news site, is this in fact little more than a blog? Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, as this is an Administrators notice board we would prefer to only interact with those admins of your website who are ID disclosed to WMF.

Secondly, the relationship between WMF and us (incl. our affiliates) has been tense and frosty for about 2 decades, marked by litigation and at times physical violence inflicted on EnWP users (outside India) and WMIN chapter office bearers and WMF employees (inside India). Based on our complaints there have been formal DMCA takedowns and also Office Actions by WMF. There is more than 1 community consensus that EnWP editors should be careful about dealing with us, ie. on the rare occasions we attempt to communicate with this community.

Blocking our messenger on EnWP is not a friendly solution and escalates matters making it uncomfortable for WMF to deal with us and/or the Govt of India and Indian Courts etc.

In this context, such EnWP admins who are au courant with WMFs legal/regulatory problems in India should resolve this matter to everyone's mutual satisfaction and in strict compliance with WMF's Terms of Use / Code of Conduct. Regards to all. (Shymal / HRD) 47.31.133.164 (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not an Administrator's noticeboard, it is open to all Wikipedians who wish to comment, you don't even have to register. Fwiw, that's true even of pages like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, except you do have to register for that one ant stick around for awhile. Welcome to Wikipedia, we hope you will enjoy participating. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You could just answer our questions, it looks like a blog, is it a blog? Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

HINDUNEWS is a private circulation fortnightly news and current affairs publication which is downloaded by between 12 million to 19 million subscribers (mostly Hindus) per issue. What is The website is not a blog. Is Wikipedia a blog ? The Chairrman of the FTC has declared that Wikipedia is a multi-user blog. WMF has taken the same stand before the courts in Germany. NB: The news slug in question is not "published " on the website. It was indexed by Google News (from its Wikipedia link) and then picked up by other media such as the Independent (UK). 49.36.183.2 (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I am confused, the website "published on the website are a few reports (from past issues) of private actions by subscribers against khan market gang.".How does this mean its not in fact (in effect) a blog, and not in fact a news organ with any kind of editorial oversite. Is there in fact two things being discussed here, a news site, and this site? By the way, this is why WP is not an RS, it is user generated. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The news report was not published on the website. It is slug accessed from the website by a logged in subscriber from a private area. HINDUNEWS is an active member of a SRB media association duly registered with India's Ministry of I&B for news, and fully compliant with its code of ethics and self regulatory norms of Indian Govt for online media under India's IT Act and Rules. The reporter for the story is the Delhi State Coordinator of the association. Any person aggrieved by the news report can file a complaint which will be ultimately adjudicated on by a retired High Court Judge as arbitrator.47.31.153.221 (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone should just close this since it’s only actual purpose seems to be violations of WP:NLT. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocking our messenger on EnWP is not a friendly solution are you saying that the prior IP editor (49.36.183.242, who is currently blocked) has some relationship with you? If they're in anyway involved with hinfunews.stream they should not be adding the site as a reference to Wikipedia, that would be a conflict of interest and you should read WP:Conflict of interest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

That IP is a subscriber of HINDUNEWS who added the link to Wikipedia (1 subscriber of millions). He/She added the link when there was no other source whatsoever. The IP has formally complained to our CEO, hence this intervention on behalf of HINDUNEWS organisation. 49.36.183.2 (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a note btw, there is no 'distinction' between users on this website, everyone is subject to the same rules and regulations.WP:NLT for example is pretty much an instant block for anyone. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, there is a long history of SPAM being added to Wikipedia and its a touchy subject. Your subscriber really had no reason to complain to you, Wikipedia is a collaborative project so edits being reverted and questioned is a normal event. That they complained to you and posted legal threats fails to show a collaborative approach.

Whether you website is used as a source for verification purposes will depend on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the consensus of Wikipedia's editors. It has nothing to do with how many subscribers you have or the nature of news you publish. Unless you want to read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and make arguments based on them, your intervention here will have little effect. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

We have no interest in EnWP rules. We (and also WMF) are only concerned with WMF Terms of Service/ CoC and The laws of India and Germany as applicable. 47.31.153.221 (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Then you will end up with a block as WP's rules (well wp:policies) are in fact all that concerns US. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not a general forum for discussion, this noticeboard is solely for discussing the reliability of sources in relation to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If that is not your intent then you are in the wrong place.

Any and all legal questions should be discussed with the WMF, it's not something we can help you with as we are not representatives of the WMF. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Then we shall post our last message here. Any Disrespect or Derogatory remarks about HINDUNEWS.STREAM published on this Wijkipedia project shall have consequences (legal and physical) which are very well known to WMF Legal and WMF's CEO. Whatever we say is in public domain [47]. The last time we intervened at this website, 2 months ago, WMF was severely castigated in the Supreme Court of India [48], [49]. Have a nice day. 47.31.153.221 (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing here is disprectful or derogatory of hindunews.stream, this is simply a discussion to determine if using hindunews.stream for the purposes of verification is compliant with Wikipedia's internal policies and guidelines. If you wish to take part in that please do so in a collaborative manner. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If you are still watching this page, let me brief you on how things are discussed here. We decide things based off WP:Consensus - i.e discussing the issues and the side who has the strongest case makes it into policy or into an article.

Again, we haven't heard you really heard why your corporation should be considered a reliable source. Perhaps you could find non-primary sources unrelated to your corporation that state the reliability of it. When/if you do, post them here and we will analyse them. Users of this website are rarely influenced by bias. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This will not go anywhere as clearly the IP's are relying on intimidation to try and bludgeon the process, that alone tells me this site does not really have any meaningful reputation for accuracy. This needs closing as a waster of our time. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 9 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.

Discussion — Patribotics and People’s Daily

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is a discussion about whether Patribotics and People’s Daily should be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Even though I’ve never saw them being used on Wikipedia, these sources are not officially prohibited on Wikipedia. I’d like to voice in favour of officially prohibiting them on Wikipedia, as Patribotics is a left-wing blog that is by many considered full of conspiracy theories, while the People’s Daily is Chinese state-owned propaganda that is considered by many as an unreliable source of information. This discussion is inspired after I’ve learned recently that the Daily Mail is officially prohitibited on Wikipedia since 2017, and in fact there was also an RfC about it. I’m also prepared for creating an RfC later about this, after this discussion ends. Thank you for reading. Hadjnix 15:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Patribiotics is not a reliable source - it's a blog and falls under WP:SPS. People's Daily is a complicated one and should probably be treated equivalent to other state media enterprises like the BBC. But I'm not fond of sourcing to news media of any sort and particularly not state media so please don't count me saying "treat it like the BBC" as praise. I just think we shouldn't be using either. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, just a little note, but Patribiotics is Louise Mensch's blog and the last time she held office it was as a Conservative so left-wing probably isn't an accurate description of the politics of Patribiotics. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I’ve saw, Patribotics usually defends left-wing politicians, such as when they claimed that Democrat Anthony Weiner was being accused of pedophilia to allow the FBI to look at his emails with Hillary Clinton. Her tenure as a Conservative in her home country was also like probably ten years ago. So I’m pretty sure she changed her political orientation. Hadjnix 16:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I didn’t know that all blogs are prohibited on Wikipedia, however the People’s Daily should not be treated as BBC, even though my personal opinion is that BBC is biased too. The People’s Daily produces way more innacurate information that BBC, too. Hadjnix 16:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree with the assertion that People's Daily publishes more disinformation than the BBC. All state media ultimately serves the views of its state. Truth is irrelevant to all of them. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I personally agree with this opinion. My country is also filled with state media and propaganda sadly. Hadjnix 17:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I’ve decided to withdraw my case against Patribotics as self-published sources are already prohitibited on Wikipedia per WP:SPS. The next RfC which will be made after the end of this discussion will only be about the People’s Daily. Hadjnix 16:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The most comparable state/party media outlets to People's Daily discussed on RSN to date would be WP:XINHUA and WP:CHINADAILY. The People's Daily should be treated the same as those. (It might be splitting hairs but it is worth noting that the People's Daily is technically party media, not state media, as it is the official mouthpiece of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.) - Amigao (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Hadjnix 17:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Alright, I decide to end this discussion. Hadjnix 07:59, 9 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.

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)

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 [50]. Alaexis_¿question? 22:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: What about the case of Lebanese soccer players?[51] 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)

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.[52][53][54] 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. [55][56]. 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. [57] 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. [58] 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)

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)

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)

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[59], and another about it's data sources [60]. 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[61], one from 2015[62], 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.[63][64] 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)

Physicians for Human Rights (presumably composed of physicians) "submitted one of several petitions to Israel's Supreme Court, warning of the spread of scabies".[65] “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[66], 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 [67]. They have reported specifically on their dark chocolate market research [68]. ConfectioneryNews has an editorial board, on which at least one SME expert, Kristy Leissle serves. Leissle is an academic who publishes on chocolate [69][70] 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)

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 [71][72]. 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)