Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

ScienceDirect Topics (AI-generated pages)

Over 1000 articles are currently citing some ScienceDirect Topics page. These are machine-generated summaries of the articles published in a certain topic by Elsevier. They cannot be reliable sources because they obscure the real source and context of any given statement, potentially turning into its opposite for lack of understanding. After finding a useful statement on such a page, editors should find a suitable original source (possibly one of the academic papers listed in the page itself), confirm that it supports the claim, and use that as reference.

I suggest adding ScienceDirect Topics to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as banned source, to better inform editors. Elsevier is strongly promoting its "AI" offering, and even though this is probably just some pretty standard machine learning (arguably less dangerous than general machine generation based on LLM), we'll probably see increased usage here as collateral damage. Nemo 08:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Topics is already listed at RSP. I had no idea so many pages use it though. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC: ScienceDirect topics

Should an edit filter be implemented to warn editors trying to add ScienceDirect topics pages to articles? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Responses (ScienceDirect)

• Yes As discussed at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#ScienceDirect_topics, an implementation of an edit filter requires a discussion at RSN. As previous discussed several times on this noticeboard (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_270#Elsevier_topics:_reliability_of_machine-generated_sources, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_417#Elsevier_topics_again, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Machine-generated_text_at_ScienceDirect_used_as_source) these are not verifiable references as the cited content on the page changes over time. We have over 1,000 references to these pages which indicates that its usage is a problem. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Last night I started attempting to replace some of these links and was immediately discouraged by both the overwhelming number of them and by how many were very recently added. It is definitely not clear to most people that SD Topics would have any problems at all, to the extent that I suspect almost no one casually using it would even consider the possibility it is GUNREL. I certainly didn't realize until I saw this thread yesterday that it was AI, despite repeatedly trying to use it to find background literature for my dissertation (and this explains why I occasionally encountered wrong shit in its summaries, and why I was never able to figure out how to cite what I thought were actual review articles...).

JoelleJay (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. They are truthy bits of out-of-context information and most people adding them will not know they are unreliable. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes per above. --Leyo 18:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes per above. In my own uses of "AI" (LLM) tools to try go generate summaries, abstracts, timelines, and other "this should be easy" digests of source material, the results have been uniformly awful, with virtually every single sentence having to be corrected in one way or another (from errors of omission to errors of focus/emphasis/nuance, to frequent outright factual errors, including "hallucinations" both of claims in particular sources and of entire sources). Maybe someday we'll be able to trust such tools to properly summarize material, but that some day is not today. Never forget that what LLMs do is try to provide an answer that will look like what should be a correct/expected result. It is not a fact-checking process of any kind, but a form of simulation. That we're able to get anything useful out of it at all (e.g. it can be used to generate simplex examples of correct, though often inelegant, Javascript or Python functions to do various things, as well as regular expressions as long as they are not very complex or do not have complex test cases to match) verges on astounding.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, as we're setting editors up for failure by not warning them. Would these be useful ELs, though? Mach61 (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. On topics for WP:MED, ScienceDirect is a commonly-applied, unsatisfying source typically providing limited search results from lower-quality journals. It is frequently selected by novice editors, requiring followup editing for source accuracy in the article. More experienced medical editors would have no difficulty finding better sources by searching PubMed with the appropriate search terms. Note for the cleanup if replacing 1000+ ScienceDirect sources is the outcome: a bot can be developed to remove them (consult user GreenC), leaving a tag, but laborious manual checking of the sourced statement and editing by a volunteer are needed to refill with a good source. Zefr (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. Similar to everyone else, I have never seen it be a reliable source for research purposes, so it should be discouraged for novice editors.Ldm1954 (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes: I was unaware that those topic pages are machine generated summaries, so an edit filter would be helpful. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Sure if machine generated content. These can be problematic, but I use the sources Science Direct cites instead since as those are not AI generated and are instead published material by researchers. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. It's just misleading. Editors should cite the articles directly. Cortador (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes per all above, and probably heading for a SNOW here. The Kip 06:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, having only caught up on these pages not being the work of an editorial team due to this discussion. I think the way they do it is pretty clever and the pages can be useful, but I'll definitely be more cautious about assuming any of the papers in there are actually representative for the field as a whole, knowing what I know now. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes and SNOW I've not participated in the previous discussion, but have kept an eye on them. From those discussions it's clear that editors should be cautioned about using the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, this is the sort of thing edit filters exist for - it's an extremely reputable-looking site from an organization that most people would normally consider trustworthy and whose summaries are going to have an academic gloss; people are very likely to try and cite its summaries without understanding that they're machine-generated. The edit filter should probably briefly explain and encourage them to cite the actual paper itself. --Aquillion (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

oko press Poland- propaganda can be reliable source?

oko press is cited in Wikipedia but it described themselves as propaganda tool created by mainstream Agora media to create impression that it is independent. oko press own communication announced it https://oko.press/stoi-oko-press-szczera-bolu-informacja-o-naszych-finansach if some tool is created only in order to fight other ideas it is propaganda. Can be propaganda a reliable source? i request to ecxlude oko press from list of reliable sources for Wikipedia. Jarek19800 (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC discussion started below this. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC: OKO.press

What is the reliability of OKO.press?

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

Previous RSN Discussion: February 2021 (Considered generally reliable) & October 2021 (Considered generally reliable)

For some background, OKO.press is mentioned or cited on 129 articles across English Wikipedia. After a talk page discussion on Visegrád 24, it was mentioned that the source may not be reliable. Given this source is cited in CTOPS articles (including Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, LGBTQ articles, and Israel-Hamas war articles), an RFC is needed to reassess reliability. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey (OKO.press)

• Undecided so far. I will do some research and make a determination !vote soon. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 — The source seems to be reliable in their reporting. I have not found inaccurate reporting in their articles. This may appear to be a little bit of an Al Jazeera, where if it is state-sponsored, the reliability of their reporting of facts does not seem to be impeded. As mentioned below this !vote by Kip, the original nominator/idea starter of this RfC, Jarek19800, was that OKO.press was propaganda based on this article, which I have to admit, I am unable to actually translate past a “please subscribe” style addition they have. As the idea of this was Jarek19800s, could you provide an article indicating OKO.press either reported something factually wrong or a secondary non OKO.press source saying it is propaganda? Unless that occurs, I must stick with option 1. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

P.S. The RfC was started by me due to duel-CTOPS nature involved with where the possible issue about this source originated from and I will note, COI is a very high possibility here, which was brought up at AN, leading to the perm EC protection on the page. Basically, RFC was a technicality since this has been at RSN before and is CTOPS related. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: Al Jazeera; as far as I can tell Agora, who partly funds OKO, is independent rather than state-controlled. The Kip 23:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 The claim above of the piece admitting they’re “anti-PiS propaganda” seems to be… off-base, to say the least. Admittedly I’m reading a Google machine-translated version, but from what I gather, the linked piece says they were founded independently with some funding from Agora due to well-documented concerns about the PiS’ increasing control of Polish state media. Biased? Perhaps a little, but on the whole they seem to be doing valid research/reporting, and I’m not exactly sold by some of the original nominator (Jarek, not WEW) arguments regarding it being “blatant propaganda.” France24 and Politico’s endorsement of their reporting + the Index on Censorship award work even further in their favor. As per usual, attribute for opinion pieces, but facts-wise they seem a-okay. The Kip 06:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your remarks. I will try to be as short as possible which can influence some clarity. Let's follow your logic: main media company in Poland Agora creates a platform Oko press in order to fight PIS. After eight years (current) there is a new govt anti PIS and 95% of media market is completely in hands of anti PIS media including Agora. If following your logic Oko press would be reliable source they shall go against this media monopoly now,shall not they? in fact they continue to fight PIS. More generally can be a media monopoly reliable by definition? Moreover head of Oko press Pacewicz is former Agora executive so let's forget about independent funding of Oko press.Personally I prefer to judge reliability of media by its origin and definition(for example it is obvious for all that any mainstream media in russia now is not reliable source) than on base of one or two false informations but I will check what I can do also in this direction. By the way how I can prove that some information was false when there is a media monopoly in the country and the false info is local from media which covers only local issues ? Jarek19800 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You say: "for example it is obvious for all that any mainstream media in russia now is not reliable source". That idea did not get much traction on RSNB recently. But even if this is the case, Poland is a very different country. My very best wishes (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Your argument essentially boils down to “they’re propaganda because they disagree with PiS and are popular,” which is entirely personal opinion, and your claim of a “media monopoly” is both wholly uncited and outright false in the first place. Sorry that I and others disagree. The Kip 05:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1, same as Gazeta Wyborcza. It seems to be a legitimate investigative journalism site. There are no indications they promote any falsehoods or unreliable. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Google Scholar search results are quite encouraging regarding the publication's quality[1] Other peer-reviewed publications cite it, so there's also a WP:USEBYOTHERS case to be made. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. OKO.press § Awards mentions that OKO.press has received a number of awards, including the Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards in 2020. As Rosguill mentioned, this detailed analysis, published by the Krakowska Akademia im. Andrzeja Frycza Modrzewskiego, elaborates on the "12 principles" methodology that OKO.press uses to perform fact-checking and rates it positively: "The article presents the fact-checking logic of a Polish press title published online since 2016, OKO.press, which in the authors’ view is an excellent example of reliable journalism practiced to the benefit of the public." — Newslinger talk 01:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Well regarded for its investigative journalism in 2020 by Index on Censorship, in 2019 by Politico, and in a 2020 case study by the European Journalism Centre. Looking through the cases listed in the discussion below, some of the strongest cases (i.e. from generally reliable sources) about unreliability would appear to be when OKO.press lost a court case, with the result that it had to remove a sentence by a well-known Polish activist making an allegation about a politician being in a Nazi salute photo; and RMF FM disputed OKO.press factual claims, including estimates of how many millions of PLN were received by RFM FM from oil refiner Orlen (RFM FM claimed values about 6 times lower than OKO.press did, while agreeing that the values were millions). So clearly OKO.press has made at least one, possibly more, unreliable claims, as have The New York Times, the BBC and The Daily Telegraph, which we nevertheless accept as generally reliable, not always reliable. Boud (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

General discussion (OKO.press)

• I would not describe prior discussions about this source as having a consensus for reliability. the February 2021 discussion was not formally closed and did not have a clear consensus. The same can be said of the October 2021 RfC not identified above, which had a numerical majority for general reliability but saw a lot of sockpuppet disruption and didn't have much in the way of real discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Whoops! I did not realize a 2nd discussion occurred. Would you be ok if I add that in the discussion? Also just to note, the prior discussion I linked earlier was considered in a different discussion (I don’t remember which of the 129 articles it was on), to be reliable under a 7-2 vote premise. That assessment was not my own doing, but more like a copy/paste of the assessment in that discussion…whatever article talk page it was on. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• This move to RfC seems a bit abrupt. The discussion in the thread above didn't even get off the ground. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Having an explicit political agenda doesn't make them unreliable (per WP:BIASED). Are there examples of them publishing falsehoods? Alaexis_¿question? 21:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  There doesn't seem to be; to be quite blunt, this issue seems to have been raised entirely on the argument that being founded as a counterweight to PiS-biased media and partly funded by a liberal-leaning news organization makes them "propaganda," which is an extremely flimsy basis for such a claim. The Kip 22:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  In 2018 polish Ministry of Justice published a statement accusing Oko.press of making false claims about financing public campaign by that ministry. [1] I couldn't find any articles investigating it further, though. Saletri (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  let's focus on fake news spreaded by oko press. this one confirms that they are propaganda tool used to take part in political war without any link to reality. all articles will be in Polish unfortunately and from media which are not a mainstream (media monopol in Poland) but fact checking is more accurate here https://www.tysol.pl/a73905-ekspert-do-oko-press-jestescie-propagandystami-lukaszenki-i-putina-bede-was-rozliczal-z-fake-news Jarek19800 (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Considering the PiS government was notorious for attempted media crackdowns, I’m not sure if I’d trust their word when accusing an independent outlet of making false claims. Governments are rarely reliable sources for criticism about themselves. The Kip 05:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  I ask you the Kip to be deleted from this discussion on the reason that you started to chase me on Wikipedia with a manner to delete my factual revisions of the articles. By chance you make it by hiding the facts concerning Soviet murderers which I hope has connection with defending left- wing media portal. of course we can try to say that only by coincidence you deleted my change on Mikhail Kalinin few days ago but such idea has is stupid so you have no reliability to discuss media reliability. Jarek19800 (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  You asserted on the article that he held sole responsibility for the massacre, when the source provided simply listed him as a co-signatory. Feel free to re-add with a source confirming the former claim, but on Wikipedia we don't engage in original research. Nice personal attack, by the way. The Kip 21:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  It is not opening the discussion on topic of if relevant was my add to article. it is about you chased my add ons to articles on wikipedia on base of this thread here. it is of course just coincidence in both you defend left-wing elements. anyway in my opinion it is not ethic and wikipedial to transport your personel feelings from one article to another one only on base of author. In my opinion you should not continue to comment this thread to keep Wikipedia neutral as much as possible. Jarek19800 (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Again;

  • Yes, I checked your edit history as I was slightly suspicious of your behavior given your assertions about OKO. This led to me finding your WP:OR regarding Kalinin. I’ve addressed it at the talk page, if you have a source backing your claim feel free to add it but the source you utilized doesn’t.
  • More PAs/violations of AGF won’t help your case here. If you truly feel I’m in the wrong, take it to WP:ANI and see what they think. Even without my “violations of neutrality,” the consensus thus far seems to heartily disagree with your assertions of “propaganda.”

  The Kip 00:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Having explicit political agenda doesn't make them (media) unreliable" true but on one condition: if there is no media monopoly in country or if opposite political media are not judged as unreliable. it means that political agenda in media is allowed only if media market is really and in reality free which is not a case in most countries including currently Poland. Jarek19800 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi everyone, I'm following the discussion and just wanted to add my 2 cents on the issue: OKO.press seems to be one of the media sitting on the fence when it comes to reliability. I read some of their articles (translated, though), but I cannot say that I have sufficient knowledge on the Polish media landscape to make a definitive call here. Why I am writing this comment is to say that reliability is not a black-or-white type question, as some articles may have a more political lean than others, reliability can depend on the contributor writing the specific piece, and finally, reliability changes over time.

  However, just to be on the cautious side, I suggest that we shouldn't use them as a sole or predominant source supporting the reliability of other sources, such as Visegrad 24 (because this is how the whole conversation began). Milentie Pokojni (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi I agree . it will put us forward until I will have time to present more comprehensive analisys of the total lack of reliability of oko press and open new thread. In meantime I found pretty reliable summary of current situation with media in Poland

  https://deadline.com/2024/03/poland-tvp-donald-tusk-recovering-1235844739/

  it is not perfect because forgets that for example in tv market we used to have 3 mainstream media Polsat- owned by Polish oligarch who was secret collaborator of communist secret police,TVN- owned by US left- wing owner and Public TV which was invaded and taken over in night by current left- wing govt security forces. by accident all 3 tv's are fiercely pro-government and have ca.95% of tv market. Conservative part of population which is not less than 30% has 5%. if this is media monopoly or not judge yourself Jarek19800 (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyone CU watching this conversation? This discussion being found by three accounts, none newly created but with a total of only 30 edits between them, strains credulity. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I also propose to summarize and finish this conversation with verdict: Generally unreliable. I found a final proof supporting such verdict on their official page in english https://oko.press/about-us they say that they will in same way question and control any govt. in Poland current or future. It is proved drastic lie as you will not find even one article made by them with criticism on current govt.after 3 month of its activity but you will find in same time dozens on current opposition. it is manipulative, propaganda media so Generally unreliable is adequate verdict. Jarek19800 (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

exxact citation is "We are a civic tool to control the government. The current one and every one after it." Jarek19800 (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Once again, bias does not automatically equal unreliability, and besides that,

I also propose to summarize and finish this conversation with verdict: Generally unreliable.

One editor cannot unilaterally label a source unreliable, especially when three other editors besides myself have come to the same conclusion that it is reliable. If you still fail to understand that, there may be other issues at play here. The Kip 02:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment for Jarek19800: A slight add-on to what The Kip noted. Wikipedia is based on a consensus between editors. You may want to check out that part of Wikipedia policy. Everything on Wikipedia is build by a community consensus between editors. No matter what happens, a discussion here won't end the world. A key thing here is Wikipedia is not about winning, but rather building and making a consensus, not based on the number of "votes" (commonly known as !votes), but rather based on the merits of their discussion.

This does not apply to this situation directly, but I wanted to point out the main theme of Wikipedia is Verifiability, not "truth". Everything on Wikipedia has to be verifiable by a secondary source. If you believe or know something to be true, but don't have a secondary source for it, it means nothing on Wikipedia. Again, not directly related to this situation, but a while ago, there was a confirmed instance of that ideology (based on community consensus) and I wrote up a short essay on it {Verifiability, not truth in action}. In that instance, a primary source confirmed new information after secondary sources had published the then-outdated information. After a long discussion occurred, it was found that Wikipedia needs to abide by the secondary sources and technically published a factually inaccurate table that was verifiable. I don't know if that was helpful or not, but hopefully it was. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I fully understand the concept of verifiability. if I say about truth I exactly have this meaning. mu beliefs are not important at all. I exactly gave min 2 undisputable examples that oko press itself directly writes" I am a liar, i was established to manipulate with fake news" It is a fact. no-one questioned that my links are unreal. It should give immediate effect of giving such verdict ( to get consensus). if my links are not true as experienced editors you should easily prove it. if verification is real than you should agree on consensus even if it is against your feelings. it is the logic you were kind to present which i fully agree. Jarek19800 (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter:, I feel as though WP:CIR may be taking effect here. The Kip 01:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

In discussion I found that you seem to put a big importance to examples of fake news as a proof of unreliability of the source. I was reluctant to this idea because I was afraid it will be hard to find facts given by mainstream media. Oko press is rather niche media in Poland and due to media monopoly mentioned by me earlier ,it rather favorized by other media platforms. Fortunately I quickly found some sound proofs as below. Good to notice that mainstream media like rmf,wp, rp.pl,money.pl confirmed lack of reliability of oko press. In min.one case court confirmed it. There is also interesting info on special treatment of negative comments by oko press (www.donald.pl)

https://www.tysol.pl/a74121-polacy-przepedzaja-kurdow-przez-rzeke-a-na-zdjeciu-litewski-slup-graniczny-fejk-dziennikarza-oko-press#.YYT_XnMK4hw.twitter

https://www.rp.pl/polityka/art1316381-godek-wygralam-w-trybie-wyborczym-z-oko-press

https://www.lasy.gov.pl/pl/informacje/aktualnosci/pellet-z-lasow-panstwowych

https://wykop.pl/link/5605383/obnazamy-fakenewsa-klamczuszki-z-oko-press

https://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/polska/news-oko-press-klamstwo-i-manipulacja,nId,7122926#crp_state=1

https://kresy.pl/wydarzenia/misiewicz-chcial-pozbawic-gen-skrzypczaka-stopnia-mon-dementuje-to-fejk/

https://www.gov.pl/web/udsc/oswiadczenie-ws-artykulu-portalu-okopress

https://www.donald.pl/artykuly/VZQaxXC6/to-tylko-teoria-zarzuca-okopress-lamanie-etyki-dziennikarskiej-i-kasowanie-komentarzy-pod-artykulem

https://wiadomosci.wp.pl/tylko-w-wp-trzy-falszywe-historie-wiceministra-patryk-jaki-odpiera-zarzuty-oko-press-skandal-absurd-kuriozum-6086449113904257a

https://www.money.pl/gospodarka/wiadomosci/artykul/sebastian-lukaszewicz-oko-press,152,0,2245272.html

https://www.press.pl/tresc/60211,oko_press-przeprosilo-konrada-wojciechowskiego_-_fakt_-prosi-o-wyjasnienia Jarek19800 (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Jarek19800 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Books by Norman Finkelstein

Norman Finklestein is a political scientist and activist. He writes on the Holocaust and the Israeli-Arab conflict. He has written a few books on the latter, and I wanted to know if they were reliable for verifying general statements in related articles due to their contentious and controversial nature.
Thanks, — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 23:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Caution While originally an academic, he has not held any academic position for decades (as far as I know) and he is indeed controversial. That doesn't mean he can't be right on fact, but probably wiser to have other sources to back it up. I wouldn't rely only on him, especially not for any contentious claim. Jeppiz (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  While I would agree that relying on him alone could be problematic, and I am in disagreement with a number of his views, the claim that he has not held any academic position for decades is incorrect even according to our own article on him. He left DePaul in 2007, and also taught in Turkey in 2014-15, I assume as a visiting lecturer. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to give a more specific answer without more specific information. He has written a number of works, and the fitness for citation may depend on which and in what context. For instance, some of his books were published with academic presses,, and university-press published books are usually the gold standards of reliability (though we continue to use a neutral tone in our writing and don't necessarily adopt the tone of the author, who in this case is known for a bold tone). That said, book reviews can provide additional information and may provide reasons for additional considerations, though be careful to comb thoroughly. A sample size of just one or two reviews (either negative or positive) may not capture the broad reception of books that have stirred as much attention as some of Finklestein's.

Being a published subject matter expert in general does lead us as Wikipedians to think other sources written by such an author are reliable, but at the same time, there is probably some wisdom in caution. The subject you are interested in citing his corpus for is designated a contentious topic, and Finkelstein has been considered a contentious man. In general, where academic scholarship is available, we'd do well to favor such over other sources, even ones written by academics (blog posts, to give a random example). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure why you think we should favor one side of a debate - talking about his older books here. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Biased perhaps but a perfectly respectable source, books such as Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict and Beyond Chutzpah are top drawer sources. That Israel and its supporters do not approve of him is immaterial. If some view is particularly contentious, it should be rather straightforward to back those up with secondary sources and if not then, attribute. Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Caution/questionable reliability/GUNREL when it comes to facts: he has been credibly accused of questionable/misleading citations by Morris and others, has a high degree of bias bordering on fringe views (regarding Hezbollah, Hebdo, the Holocaust, and others) and has been highly controversial as a person. Some of his older works are of decent quality and can be used very selectively, but I would avoid citing him on anything in regards to law or the military due to a repeated failure to understand the subject appropriately, seen well in his coverage of the flotilla incident. FortunateSons (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Highly reliable source, his works are published by respected academic presses, such as University of California Press, and in peer-reviewed journals. His latest work, Gaza: An Inquest in to its Martyrdom, is from University of California Press. People not liking Finkelstein's positions is not relevant to this, he is absolutely a subject matter expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his academic works are WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The above comment is astounding in its attempt to dismiss one of the most cited scholars on the topic of Gaza because is is supposedly a "highly controversial person". Top tier source, and totally fine for usage here. If some source disagrees with him and it is of equal reliability then attribute the different views. nableezy - 20:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Extreme caution - I'd avoid using him for anything beyond actual opinion; he's a wildly controversial resource, hasn't held a serious job in academia since the mid-2000s, and has genuinely fringe views on a variety of topics, including Holocaust denial and discredited anti-Semite David Irving and support for the October 7 attacks. There's very little reason to use him when far superior and less inflammatory sources, without fringe baggage, are widely available. Toa Nidhiki05 14:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That is a straightforward BLP violation and if you do not substantiate the wildly inappropriate claim that the son of Holocaust survivors has denied it in any way I’ll be asking for a BLP and PIA ban in short order. nableezy - 15:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

His stance that Holocaust denial should be taught in schools by Holocaust deniers is absolutely, unequivocally fringe. That's what I'm referring to - well, that and supporting the "scholarship" of David Irving, which is pretty uniformly regarded to be discredited. That your first thought was to threaten a noticeboard report is really unfortunate. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake. Like Chomsky, Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, whose whole life and scholarship reflects the impact of their witness, has no fear of fools, denialists. Their maniacal obsessions with apparently incongruent details in the Holocaust literature occasionally stimulates close re-examination of things by now taken for granted - not the holocaust in all of its overwhelming realities, but details in the narrative. Great scholars don't tremble and run. They chase down anomalies even among crank literature because their self-assurance about the general narrative will never be troubled by tidbits of discrepancy. That is not fringe. That is the pursuit of meticulousness, even when analysing motherlodes of bullshit (which is what Finkelstein in his analytical works on the endless misreportage of events in the I/P conflict, does professionally. Had you read that article carefully, you would have noted that its reasoning, far from being fringe, draws on the liberal tolerance of dissent, all the better to challenge it, espoused by John Stuart Mill. Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This question should not be posed. Finkelstein is an outstanding historian of the I/P conflict, and like everyone else writing academically about it, he has a decided point of view. The refusal to allow him tenure against the consensus of his colleagues, under external pressure, in no way disqualifies him as an historian or political scientist. The University of California published, after a decade of ostracism, his work, Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom, and his earlier works were unconditionally supported by the founding father of Holocaust studies, Raul Hilberg. His citation index by peers shows the depth of the impact of his work Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

His view is you don't win a debate by shutting down the opposition, you win by proving it wrong. That isnt fringe, and it has nothing to do with his academically published works. nableezy - 04:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It is absolutely fringe to suggest holocaust deniers should have any role in the education system whatsoever, let alone that holocaust denial should be taught in schools. And that's not the only thing he's fringe on - since being fired in the 2000s (he hasn't actually had a job in academia since - as of 2016, he had been unemployed for ten years, and he's not been employed since), his work and viewpoints have become increasingly problematic. This includes, as I listed above, the strong defense of David Irving (an unrepentant Holocaust denier whose works have been generally regarded as discredited), the advocacy for teaching holocaust denial in schools, a staunch defense of antisemitic tropes (specifically, justifying claims that the Jews "think they are better than other people", "talk about the Holocaust too much", and are "tapped into the networks of power and privilege") and more recently, the denial of any sexual violence during the October 7 attacks (which he also applauded and compared to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). In other words: whatever credibility he had during his early academic career, it's been nearly two decades since he had a job in academia, and it really shows. Toa Nidhiki05 13:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Can't see anything there about his academically published works, see section title. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

He hasn't been in academia in nearly 20 years at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That isn’t true and his last book, again published by University of California Press, is from 2021. nableezy - 14:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

From the sourceI linked: "He hasn’t held a steady academic job since DePaul University denied him tenure under political pressure in 2007. Now, after years of sporadic work and low pay as an adjunct, Finkelstein is suddenly spending ten hours a day fielding emails from people clamoring for his insights." That's from December 2023. So I suppose he has been in academia, insofar as being an adjunct professor qualifies. I think broadly, my point still stands though - there's a clear divide between Finklestein's work before and after his leave from academia. Toa Nidhiki05 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

He was at Sakarya University Middle East Institute 2014–15. And he still is considered an expert source by the well regarded academic presses that publish his work, as recently as a book from the University of California Press in 2021. A scholar who is writing in the area of his expertise in works published by well regarded university presses is WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and no amount of whining about views you dont like changes that. nableezy - 14:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: You should strike the part where you say his views include Holocaust denial. That's a BLP violation because it's not true. He's the son of Holocaust survivors, he doesn't deny that the Holocaust happened. Levivich (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not say his views include Holocaust denial. I said he has fringe views on Holocaust denial, specifically that he supports teaching it in schools, and has publicly defended David Irving, a notorious Holocaust denier whose work has been discredited. I can clarify that specifically, but I have not accused him of being a Holocaust denier, and my wording was fairly careful, I think. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok I appreciate the clarification, thanks. FWIW, the way it was phrased, I read it as you saying that "Holocaust denial" was one of the fringe views on a variety of subjects that he held, not that he held fringe views about Holocaust denial, but I understand what you mean. I'm not sure his views are actually fringe (as opposed to a significant minority viewpoint), but I agree that's not a blpvio. Levivich (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable. He's a major political scientist, his book The Holocaust Industry has 900 Google Scholar cites [2], he has written other works that are also widely cited and well-reviewed, he is a bona fide scholar in the field. Being "controversial" does not make someone unreliable, and pretty much all high-profile scholars are controversial, like Benny Morris, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Elie Wiesel, and James Flynn come to mind. That doesn't mean we say things in Wikivoice just because Finkelstein wrote them, but Finkelstein's works are definitely WP:RS. Levivich (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

These 900 citations confirm that The Holocaust Industry was culturally important, but not that he is seen as serious from a scholarly point of view. I looked at one of t he first page hits at random (Byfield on conspiracy theories) and the reference to Finkelstein was about his work being used to legitimate antisemitism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

900 citations doesn't mean it's the mainstream view, but it DOES mean that it's taken seriously. If it wasn't taken seriously, it wouldn't have been cited so many times! Even if all 900 citations are debunking Finkelstein (and of course they're not), it would still show he was taken seriously, seriously enough to be thoroughly debunked. Benny Morris is a direct parallel: widely cited, very often to be criticized, but still widely cited. Levivich (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Extreme caution: Extremely controversial and increasingly fringe. His early work is definitely noteworthy in relevant debates, but his views should always be attributed and his work in the last decade or two would rarely be noteworthy. For recent positions, use secondary sources to ascertain noteworthiness before using. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  In what world is this not a serious academic work that is noteworthy? That, from 2021, has 59 google scholar citations. Image and Reality, from 2003, has 470 scholar citations. How does a scholar with these many scholarly works cited this often in other scholarly works add up to "secondary sources to ascertain noteworthiness before using"? He is the secondary source, and he is an expert one, and treated as an expert by both the well regarded academic presses that publish his work and by the scholars that cite it. All of the objections here are on the basis of not liking his views, and that is not, and has never been, an acceptable criteria for reliability. An academic expert writing in a book published by a well regarded university press is a reliable source by definition, and no amount of baseless personal opinion on [e]xtremely controversial and increasingly fringe trumps that. If somebody wants to challenge a scholar writing in peer reviewed journals and books published by the University of California Press they can try that, but they are arguing in direct opposition to what WP:RS says. Which is rather surprising from you tbh. nableezy - 04:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Bob. Finkelstein gets its in the neck from the left and the right. The left hate his polemic against Wokism and the BDS movement, the right, or rather, people who skimread only with eyes for possible political fallout for Israel, can't come up with any serious evidence outlining some putative failure on Finkelstein's part to observe the strictest criteria for closely documenting from the historical record. It all boils down to "instrumentalisation". Finkelstein, also as the son of Holocaust survivors, one of whom got a mere pittance from Jewish institutions lucratively sueing banks, argues that Holocaust discourse is 'instrumentalized'. Enzo Traverso and others ply the worry bead that Finkelstein's results might be "instrumentalized" by antisemites. So one gets the absurd situation that if one analyses the way the Holocaust discourse is being "instrumentalised" you get attacked for providing possible grounds for antisemites to "instrumentalize" your results. So it is no longer the merits or otherwise of a 'forensic' scholarly study of a phenomenon that receive attention, but the politics of the way that critical knowledge may be manipulated and abused. Of the handful of names who count in evaluating his book on The Holocaust Industry what sticks out are the assessments by the former doyen of the discipline,Raul Hilberg (Hilberg was a Republican-voting political conservative whose methodological and empirical integrity was underlined by the fact that he defended the views of an ex-Maoist like Finkelstein, whose scholarship was judged of a high order and whose 'controversial' results he deemed 'conservative') and by Moshe Zuckermann, against their informed authority we then get a list of take-'em-or-leav'em newspaper opinionists like Jonathan Friedman, and some empty dismissive obiter dicta hearsay about Hans Mommsen. In the wiki list, the only serious scholar who challenges Finkelstein's work in terms of imputed flaws, is Peter Novick. Good, finally an evaluation that is not just shouting, but scholarly. Finkelstein duly replied, point by point. That is how serious scholarship works, beyond the breezy screedy argie-bargie of casual newspaper-type reviews which our page on the book selects, to give the impression he is 'controversial'. I don't get the impression here that many commenting editors are familiar with the field, let alone Finkelstein's work, as opposed with what can be googled up searching for polemical negativism about the man and his scholarship. He is a loner, deprived of an income for having written uncomfortable books on a topic where vast financial resources will guarantee one's career and professional security if one cautiously steps tippity-toe round the minefield of discourse on Israel , the Holocaust, where the only trump card invariably played is to accuse anyone diffident about the homely narrativization of the politics of an ethnic state and its 'normalcy' is 'antisemitism'. That is what your extreme caution really refers to in my view, extreme caution about allowing the factual record produced, for example, by Finkelstein in his recent Inquest into the Tragedy of Gaza', to get an airing. Very few reviews could elicit any notable distortion in his analysis of the facts laid out there. Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There is already enough text in this section so I won't extend this debate, but just note that I strongly take exception to your second guessing my motivations to assume bad faith and that my judgement on his reliability is a demand that facts not get an airing. That's just not true and bad WP etiquette. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Why do you highlight Moshe Zuckermann as particularly notable? His citation metrics seem low-middling, including in contrast to some other reviewers, but perhaps I'm missing some other indication of his high relevance here. Freelance-frank (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Serious scholarship, a bit too strident for the taste of many but passes RS. Attribute opinions as always. Zero^talk 12:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Reliable. Not just reliable, but he is among the best sources you can get on Israel/Palestine. His scholarship is based on detailed, painstaking research that few can match. BTW, I don't think he is attacking Wokeism, but rather the (obvious) sloppy reasoning that its activists sometimes use. --NSH001 (talk)
• Caution/Questionably reliable -- per FortunateSons and frankly per his own article's criticism section of him. At a bare minimum it would require attribution and probably should be avoided on contentious topics. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That makes no sense. He is an acknowledged scholarly authority on, precisely, a 'contentious topic' .Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

People don’t like his views so they pretend that’s a basis for challenging his reliability. It isn’t and never has been. nableezy - 17:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a very unfair characterization of people objecting to his use as a reliable source. How does that productively contribute to this discussion? Toa Nidhiki05 18:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a fair characterization when there are editors voting that Finkelstein is not reliable, not based on evidence of his unreliability, but on evidence that he holds controversial views. Has he ever made a factual claim that was debunked? Has his work ever had to be retracted? Is his work widely cited by other scholars? Etc., etc. The fact that he says, e.g., Israel is a Jewish supremacist state, or that there is a Holocaust industry exploiting the Holocaust, makes him controversial but not unreliable. Levivich (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Well obviously he's said things that are untrue - like, for example, that no people were raped on October 7, and that no children were taken hostage, or that David Irving - a notorious Holocaust denier and discredited academic - was an excellent historian. But these don't directly relate to his academic career, I'll admit. Here's a counter: has his work in the last two decades out of academia been deemed widely cited and reliable? Even he admitted in the interview I've posted several times that nobody cared about his 2019 book, which sold a few hundred copies. I don't have an issue with his early career, insomuch as his very public, non-academic descent into some very dark places in the last two decades. Simply put: there are dozens of credible historians who don't have the specific bias problems or extreme viewpoints Finklestein does, and would be far better served as reputable sources in his place. There may be circumstances where Finklestein's opinion is noteworthy, but that's as an opinion, not an objective source of fact. I think that's a fairly nuanced take. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I’ve posted the citations to his 2021 work published by University of California Press already. nableezy - 18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

And I'll say it again: if Finkelstein is unreliable because of the controversial views he holds, then Benny Morris must also be unreliable because of the controversial views he holds (like, "they should have finished the ethnic cleansing"). But of course that's not how WP:RS works. Levivich (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a discussion about Norman Finkelstein, not other people. I wouldn't be inclined to think anyone who supports ethnic cleansing should be regarded as a reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

(replying to both here) In both cases, you're judging a source's reliability based on the opinions the author holds. The idea that we shouldn't use a source because we disagree with the author's opinion is totally wrong, that's nothing but censorship. Finkelstein's comments about Oct. 7 have absolutely zero relevance to whether his works prior to then, e.g. 2000's The Holocaust Industry, are reliable or not.

"deemed widely cited and reliable" is such a nonsense phrase, Toa. You know damn well that nobody "deems" works to be "widely cited and reliable" ... well, except Wikipedia.

But yes, his works have been widely cited. I already linked to Holocaust Industry's 950 citations. His 2018 book Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom has 59 Google scholar cites, not exactly overwhelming, but certainly enough to call it "widely cited" (in this field), and it's been favorably reviewed (see cites in the Wikipedia article).

More impressive is his 2005 book Beyond Chutzpah, which has 358 Google Scholar cites.

So, yeah, still a scholar, still widely cited, and his controversial opinions are not a reason to call him unreliable in the Wikipedia sense. Levivich (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Relative to academic historians in the field, 59 citations doesn't actually seem like a lot. Your other example is from his academic time, which I'm not contesting. Aren't there other historians who have actually been in academia in the last two decades, without a track record of genuinely inflammatory remarks (again, the David Irving thing - I've not seen a response to this, at all, but defending his status as a historian is a very, very big red flag. He's widely and uniformly regarded not just as a Holocaust denier, but a fraud). I would say the same thing about a historian from the Israeli side with a similar record, too - there is no shortage of academic work on this matter. Toa Nidhiki05 18:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Which books not reliable, according to you? Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I would consider his post-academic body of work one that should be used with extreme caution. I believe I've said this multiple times now. Toa Nidhiki05 18:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

So not this one? 2012: Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel is Coming to an End, OR Books, New York (2012) ISBN 978-1-935928-77-5 which seems right on the money, at least going by the title.

Just to be clear, you assert that all of his published material since 2007? is unreliable? Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

His 2018 Gaza book getting 59 cites is not a lot but it's not nothing, either. For comparison, Ilan Pappe's 2017 book about Gaza has 91 cites. Levivich (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Serious caution and consider WP:DUE weight As best as I’m aware, Finkelstein’s work, while high-profile, is highly controversial and does not always represent academic consensus. As such, it probably shouldn’t be used without attribution, or even with it without consulting opposing views and ensuring due weight.

If NPOV policy and DUE mean that WP is nothing but an establishment mouthpiece, so be it. There are limits to our discretion in generating a big picture from raw data because we are a tertiary or sometimes even quaternary source. I believe there’s an essay about it somewhere (actually multiple iirc).

Further information: Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair

and its reference list

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Follow Wikipedia sourcing guidelines - exercise caution. It's hard to respond to such a general question, but it's clear that he disagrees sharply with many no less eminent scholars. Therefore we should not assume that whatever he wrote represents the scholarly consensus and should seek other voices. Alaexis_¿question? 21:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Unreliable specifically regarding American Holocaust consciousness from 1948-1967 as argued in The Holocaust Industry. Finkelstein and Novick both played a role in promoting and popularizing this idea, but reviewers of Hasia Diner's 2009 book We Remember with Reverence and Love universally suggest that this conception lacked substantive empirical backing to start with and has been dispatched by Diner's work. For instance, Kevin Spicer in his American Historical Review piece says: "In this work, Hasia R. Diner dismantles the claim promoted by Peter Novick and Norman G. Finkelstein, among others, that American Jews 'made little of the Holocaust, pushing it to the hidden corners and indeed, under the rug of their communal lives' until the 1961 Adolf Eichmann trial, which brought the horrors of the Nazi period into prominent focus (p. 4). By contrast, through extensive archival research Diner more than convincingly reveals the opposite." Henry L. Feingold in the Journal of American History concurs that Diner "completes the process of putting those false charges to rest", while Stephen J. Feingold in the American Historical Review states that "the evidence... is quite overwhelming. So resourcefully has Diner tracked down sermons and song lyrics, posters and programs, that this reviewer finds it hard to imagine any future historians continuing to perpetuate the claims that an explicit communal consciousness of the Holocaust did not really surface until the 1960s."

For what it is worth, scholars questioned Finkelstein's spotty archival work shortly after publication of THI. David Cesarani points out many major productions and publications Finkelstein missed or downplayed in his 2000 review for Times Higher Education alongside other critiques, for instance. Freelance-frank (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement from other scholars is not a case for unreliability. Zero^talk 07:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

True, but widespread disagreement from actual Holocaust scholars should make us use him as a source on the Holocaust only with extreme caution and attribution, making sure to triangulate with other scholars. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Finkelstein is an actual Holocaust scholar, and this effort to redefine scholar to only include people you agree with is not in keeping with WP policies and guidelines. nableezy - 15:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Finklestein is not, in fact, a Holocaust scholar. WWII/ Holocaust scholars roundly reject the work of Holocaust denier David Irving, who Finklestein regards as a great scholar. Toa Nidhiki05 16:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if anybody is citing David Irving, so I dont see the relevance, but Finkelstein's work The Holocaust Industry received positive reviews from Raul Hilberg for example. Yes it also had negative reviews, but so do most academic works. That doesnt diminish that they are works of scholarships written by scholars. nableezy - 16:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It's true that Hilberg (a great Holocaust scholar) did to some endorse Finkelstein's book, but he is an outlier. Finkelstein was a scholar of the reception of the Holocaust, not of the Holocaust itself. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Is, but sure fine on the rest of the statement. nableezy - 19:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Finkelstein could think Hitler was a swell guy, it would still have nothing to do with the reliability of his published works. The way we know that The Holocaust Industry is an WP:RS is all the journal reviews and the 900+ citations. "The author has an opinion that's wrong, therefore his works are unreliable" is just nonsense. To show unreliability, you'd need to show his work being debunked, not his opinions being unpopular. Levivich (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That's true of every author. That doesn't make an author not an WP:RS. Again, Benny Morris is the quintessential example of an RS that most scholars in the field disagree with strongly, but still an RS. Scholars disagree with each other, it's what they do. Levivich (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Finkelstein's self-description is that he is not a scholar of the Holocaust itself, but only of its popular interpretations and uses. When pressed in 2015 on his figures by Medhi Hassan, he says: "I don't claim at all to be an authority on the Nazi holocaust. The book The Holocaust Industry is not about the Nazi holocaust. It's a book about how the holocaust has been rendered in popular opinion and in so-called scholarship." Of course, I argue that he makes errors beyond this, but at the very least he says himself not to be a scholar of the Nazi genocide (though he defends the statements he makes, naturally). Freelance-frank (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

To ground this more concretely in guidelines, a quote from WP:RSAGE: "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed.... Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years." I argue that a statement from a review like the one I quote above indicates such a development ("...this reviewer finds it hard to imagine any future historians continuing to perpetuate the claims..."), which is a statement on both academic consensus and validity of the older argument.

The next paragraph says, "Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate), and primary sources which purport to debunk a long-standing consensus or introduce a new discovery". I argue that this is not an issue with Diner's book based on the following parenthetical, which suggests "awaiting reviews that validate the methods". The three reviews satisfy this. Freelance-frank (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable: as an exceptionally knowledgeable subject-matter expect. I find it surprising to even see this questioned. If his views are left field then they should be attributed, as should any views, from anyone. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Most arguments made above are rather poor and miss the point, and that applies to both the arguments for and against Finkelstein. The real question should be on his academic credentials. There as well, there are pros and cons. In his favour, his books are often published by high quality academic publishing houses, that definitely helps. Against him, he has not held any academic position for a very long time. Those aspects should both be weighed, but whether he is controversial or not is not the question (or should not be). The question is what his academic credentials are. Jeppiz (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Worth bearing in mind that his lack of tenure has itself been the source of controversy, see Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair, so a slightly murky and muddied metric in this case. Better to defer to his academic citations. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  The Dershowitz affair was nearly two decades ago. It would be silly to suggest his inability to find work in academia to this day is not because of that incident alone. Toa Nidhiki05 17:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  What do you mean, "his inability to find work in academia"? What is that based on? He publishes a book like almost every year. Levivich (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  He has not had a full-time job in academia since 2006, Levivich. Toa Nidhiki05 18:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  He hasn’t held a steady academic job since DePaul University denied him tenure under political pressure in 2007. Now, after years of sporadic work and low pay as an adjunct, Finkelstein is suddenly spending ten hours a day fielding emails from people clamoring for his insights.

  "People clamoring for his insights" ... hmmmmm... Levivich (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Does it define who these people are? But again, like I said before, he doesn't work in academia and hasn't in several decades. That is a mark against him. Toa Nidhiki05 19:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Publishing academic books counts as working in academia. And the same source you cited says he has worked at universities, but sporadically and as a low paid adjunct, since being denied tenure. That isn't "not working" that's "working." Also, he was denied tenure in 2007; that's not "several decades" ago, it's 16 years. You are not being accurate in your statements here. And his subsequent employment history has no bearing anyway on the reliability of his published works. Levivich (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  And he has held multiple academic posts since then. nableezy - 17:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Which academic positions has he held since 2007? Jeppiz (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  At Sakarya University Middle East Institute from 2014-15. nableezy - 22:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's an honest mistake, but teaching for a year at a university is not the same as holding an academic position. I can understand the confusion, but lots of universities have occasional lecturers who may teach for a semester or a couple of semesters, but who are not part of the faculty. There is no indication Finkelstein ever held a faculty position at Sakarya. Also, as you wrote that he has held "multiple academic posts", could you please name the others you had in mind? Jeppiz (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  That Finkelstein's academic career prospects were crushed by political pressure which led the university to ignore the very strong support he had both from faculty and his students in favour of tenure is well known, not controversial. When you are denied tenure, and your teaching terminated, it virtually condemns you to unemployment because any other university mulling hiring him would have to evaluate whether the inevitable public (sectorial) outcry and hullabaloo was worth the candle. When 11 years later, the University of California published his book on Gaza's Martyrdom, it flagged an acknowledgemen that his scholarship was still of the fine order demanded by that high quality academic publisher. There's no need to rub his face into the ground remarking on his poverty, unemployed status as if he were somewhow culpable. Most academics get their Phd published to secure tenure, and, once secure, enjoy their sinecures and leisurely teaching. It takes an exceptional character to bear the humiliation he suffered and still persist in the careful scholarship he manages to sustain even in very difficult personal circumstances. Nishidani (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thats just silly, I didnt say he was part of the faculty, but an adjunct professor is an academic position. I may have been mistaken on multiple however, seem to recall reading about a position in Europe but I cant find it now. But regardless, he continues to be treated as an academic expert by well regarded publishers, like the University of California Press. Unless you are of the belief that just any random schmuck can get through their review process? nableezy - 23:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Academic credentials, at least as far as professorship alone, do not seem to be terribly useful indicators of reliability. Freelance-frank (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, aren't their creationist and climate-denying and heavens-knows-what-else professors out there? And of course, Alan Dershowitz has tenure ... Iskandar323 (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. Freelance-frank (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  How about publishing works through prestigious university presses? nableezy - 22:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's definitely not nothing, but heaps of academic garbage get through peer review, with that problem more acute in some circles than others. The arguments above about citation metrics are somewhat more compelling to me than the argument about peer review alone since high citation metrics suggest people (whether in agreement, disagreement, or ridicule) at least seek fit to reference Finkelstein's work. Regarding his I/P books, plenty of the citations are to heavy hitters who I assume are referencing Finkelstein substantively. Exploration not only of the numbers, but also highlighting of some of the individuals using Finkelstein and how they are using him might improve the arguments so far, as would discussion of reviews. From poking around a little, there are some nice reviews one could reference, though some of the reviews themselves underline Finkelstein's presence at only the margins of academic discourse. Freelance-frank (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Scholarship reliable This is a malformed request, because questions of source reliability go beyond authorship and include considerations of peer-review, editorial board review, and publisher oversight. Nevertheless, where Finkelstein has been published by an academic press there is no doubt his books or journal publications are highly reliable on the topic. His work is rigorous and maintains a close and careful attention to detail. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is a very good point. We shouldn’t be making a blanket assessment if his reliability. We can assume that his book published by UC Press has gone through a more rigorous editorial and fact checking process and therefore would be considerably more reliable than his self-published blogposts, articles published by the Nazi magazine Unz Review or his book on the ICC published by OR Books, which calls itself an “alternative publisher”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  That isn’t how we treat established experts published by serious university presses, an expert source writing in yellow ink in the snow is still a reliable source. nableezy - 09:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

break (Syndication in Unz Review)

• Bobfrombrockley I actually had not known Finklestein publishes his work in the Unz Report, which is a virulently far-right, white nationalist, and antisemitic outlet. This has actually attracted negative attention from academia - this article from Portland State University says "The Unz Review is a “mix of far-right and far-left anti-Semitic crackpottery, from 9/11 ‘truther’ and conspiracy theorist Paul Craig Roberts to ‘Holocaust industry’ critic Norman Finkelstein, who believes Jews exploit the Holocaust to justify oppressing Palestinians”. Finkelstein is, evidently, funded by the Unz Foundation as well. Add that as another strike against his credibility. Toa Nidhiki05 22:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  If only Finkelstein wasn't "academia" you might have a point. nableezy - 23:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's possible for academics to be unreliable and criticized by other academics in their field. This has happened with Norman Finkelstein. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  There remains zero evidence for that statement. nableezy - 06:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Nableezy

  I suggest you look at NF wikipedia article under the section "Reception" and "Criticism". Vegan416 (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well aware of it. You also don’t need to ping me here. nableezy - 10:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's not an article from Portland State University, it's a conference paper written by two people who work at PSU. The paper is partially quoting an op-ed by Cathy Young in The Federalist, but the full quote is more nuanced:

  The Unz Review, founded by maverick businessman Ron Unz as a forum for non-mainstream perspectives, is somewhat more eclectic; but much of this eclecticism is a mix of far-right and far-left anti-Semitic crackpottery, from 9/11 “truther” and conspiracy theorist Paul Craig Roberts to “Holocaust industry” critic Norman Finkelstein, who believes Jews exploit the Holocaust to justify oppressing Palestinians.

  The Wikipedia articles on The Unz Review (and Ron Unz) have additional sources. While I wouldn't consider The Unz Review an RS, just because Finkelstein is published there or receives money from them doesn't have any bearing on the reliability of his works published elsewhere, e.g. university presses. Levivich (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, at this point we know he's praised the scholarship of notorious academic fraud and Holocaust denier David Irving, and that he writes for and is paid by a website that is notorious for white supremacy and antisemitism. Additionally, he's not been in academia for nearly two decades, and his work is not uniformly praised in academia itself. I don't really see the merits of using him on this encyclopedia, honestly. Toa Nidhiki05 02:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not going to repeat my responses to all those points as they have been well covered above. The merits of using him on this encyclopedia is that NPOV means we summarize all significant viewpoints, even the viewpoints we disagree with. To do otherwise would be censorship. We are neutral to the viewpoints of reliable sources, and so long as Finkelstein's works receive many citations, and he's published by academic publishers and cited by other scholars in the field (all of which is indisputable), he is an RS. Controversial scholars are still scholars, and former professors with many Google scholar cites who are published by university presses are scholars. There is no guilt-by-association exception to WP:NPOV or WP:RS. His books on the Holocaust Industry, or on Gaza, don't suddenly become non-RSes because of what he says about David Irving, or because he's published by Unz. Levivich (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  And I'll say it again, for what it's worth: being published by a genuine white nationalist outlet is an enormous red flag, in my opinion. It's far from the only reason I'm skeptical of using him, but association with fringe, alt-right or white nationalist figures is absolutely something that reflects very poorly on a source's credibility. Toa Nidhiki05 03:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  See also association fallacy. nableezy - 04:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  It’s not an association fallacy when, presumably, he’s the one who chose to write for a far-right website. I’m not accusing him of being a white nationalist, but writing for fringe, far right websites is not typically a hallmark of an indisputably reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 05:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  If you want to characterize it as a red flag, that's fine. The question then becomes "to what end?" You can't just gesture to it repeatedly unless it might actually mean something, something which you've yet to articulate.

  Can you point to any examples of specific problems with his actual work you'd like to discuss? Preferably beyond mere disagreements with colleagues, per above. Frankly, that's the only worthwhile focus for this discussion, the rest has so far amounted to hot air, I'm afraid. Remsense诉 05:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  For Pete's sake, a publication dedicated to publishing non-mainstream views that publishes both far-right and far-left views is not a far-right website or a Nazi website. Finkelstein is politically left-of-center not right-of-center, and he's the son of Holocaust survivors, so obviously nobody thinks he's a white supremacist. Levivich (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  Can't believe I'm having to prove this, but the Unz Review is, in fact, uniformly regarded as far-right, white nationalist website:

• The Guardian: "carries columns from avowed neo-Nazis and racists... a one-stop shop for hate from many different vantage points"
• Seattle Times: "a far-right website criticized by the Anti-Defamation League as hosting racist and antisemitic content"
• Rolling Stone: "antisemitic blog"
• Anti-Defamation League: "a fringe platform that regularly hosts bigoted content"
• CNN: "a website that has published Holocaust denialism and columns in support of White nationalism"
• Southern Poverty Law Center: "white nationalist publication"
• Mother Jones: "white nationalist publication"
• Kansas City Star: "a website that includes white nationalist and anti-Semitic content"
• New York Times: "far-right"

  This was all from a cursory 10-minute search. I am not arguing he's a white supremacist (although he does hold a number of views associated with the far right, including transphobia and supporting Russia's genocidal war against Ukraine, neither of which are especially relevant here). But I do strongly believe that writing for a white nationalist website is a massive, massive red flag for credibility. Toa Nidhiki05 13:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• association with fringe, alt-right or white nationalist figures is absolutely something that reflects very poorly on a source's credibility … It’s not an association fallacy. Too easy. nableezy - 11:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  By this logic, your "his books have been published by academic presses, which means he's a reliable academic" argument doesn't hold water either. Toa Nidhiki05 13:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)]

  Reliable publishers convey reliability; they don't convey political or ideological slants, which is what you are deducing from an online publisher. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  That’s not my argument, that’s Wikipedias. nableezy - 14:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  And they also note what I'm saying in WP:QUESTIONABLE. Toa Nidhiki05 14:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  The only thing questionable here is the beating of the dead horse. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  No, thats about sources that dont have a track record of being published by highly regarded university presses and peer reviewed journals. What actually is relevant to Finkelstein is WP:RS/SPS where it says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Finkelstein is an established expert in the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict whose work has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. nableezy - 15:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  OR Books also publishes work by Bill McKibben, Simon Critchley, Slavoj Žižek, Patrick Cockburn, Douglas Rushkoff, Moustafa Bayoumi, Barney Rosset, among many others... lots of established writers and thinkers in their fields. I don't think it matters if they call themselves an "alternative publisher." I'm not really perceiving a difference between OR Books and other progressive publishers like Zed Books. Levivich (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  My point was simply that reliability isn't by author alone, but also by publisher. While OR is not necessarily unreliable it's clearly not as reliable as a university press (while it is clearly more reliable than Unz or Sublation). (FWIW I think Zed - like Pluto or Verso - is a cut above OR in terms of peer review and editorial process.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, I completely agree with that. Levivich (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

In no uncertain terms, Finkelstein has done some of the most careful, erudite scholarship in the history of history, period. It is ridiculous how error-free his oeuvre has been for its sheer size. I am not impressed by the arguments to a comparative skepticism above, because they show a basic lack of familiarity with his work or its place in the field. It's necessary to make this clear because otherwise chatter in a vacuum can be given disproportionate weight, so I'm putting my thumb firmly on the scale: if there's such a thing as a reliable source about a contentious topic, it's Norman Finkelstein.

I would sometimes recommend attempting to read a scholarly work of before asking here whether it should be considered reliable. If anything, it would give the discussion more to work with than aspersions. Remsense诉 04:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

When you say "his place in the field", which field do you mean? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Caution: My position is that like in any case of a scholar who seems to be far from the consensus in his field, we as non-experts should prefer the consensus. Though the consensus can sometimes be wrong, and the outliers right, more often it is the other conventional way around. So it would not be right to rely on his books as a single source for controversial claims. Vegan416 (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  On what, exactly, is Finkelstein far from the consensus in his field? And how does "it would not be right to rely on his books as a single source for controversial claims" differ from how we would treat any other RS? Levivich (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense The problem with your argument is that unless you are yourself already an expert in the field, then reading the book wouldn't tell you if he is really done "careful, erudite scholarship" or if he is just good at peddling BS. That's why we should prefer to look close to the consensus in any field. Vegan416 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, who's peddling BS? Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Any person with enough talent can peddle BS in a shiny format, that for a layman in the field would be indistinguishable from real valuable research. That's why we have to rely on other experts in the field to detect it. And that's why in wikipedia, as well as in real life, it is always advisable to rely on the consensus in each field rather than on outliers. Even though sometime it turns out eventually the outliers were right and then the consensus changes, it happens quite rarely, and as a general rule it is still a much better bet to rely on the consensus. Vegan416 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

So which experts are you relying on? And what BS did they detect that made NF an outlier? Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. What experts I'm relying on regarding what question? Vegan416 (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This supposed "consensus" that NF peddles BS. Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Where did I say there is such a consensus?? Try reading my words carefully again. All I said is that it seems that NF is far from the consensus in his field of research (by which I mean in this context the IP conflict). Do you think that he is part of the consensus in this field? Vegan416 (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It is for you to prove your assertion or withdraw it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. A scholar operating within the consensus in his field wouldn't need to publish anything in a site like the Unz Review (titled "An Alternative Media Selection"), as he would have much better venues open to him... Vegan416 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem with Unz isn't that it's an alternative outlet, it's that it's a white supremacist, far-right, antisemitic outlet, and no self-respecting scholar worth their salt would write in it. Toa Nidhiki05 18:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

That's your opinion, not an answer to my question. As I said at the outset of this discussion, we have articles about his books full of reviews with praise for his work and his work is WP policy compliant but we are supposed instead to pay attention to some random voice on the web saying he peddles BS? I ask again, who is peddling BS? Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)]

Just read the sentence again, this time carefully. Here it is: The problem with your argument is that unless you are yourself already an expert in the field, then reading the book wouldn't tell you if he is really done "careful, erudite scholarship" or if he is just good at peddling BS. It's not difficult to understand, but you still failed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier

Since it seems you failed to understand my words even with careful reading then let me explain it to you in other words. I didn't accuse anyone of peddling BS. I only said that it is not always possible for the layman to distinguish between those who do real valuable research and those who peddle shiny BS research. So reading a book of some author would not necessarily enable you to judge the quality of his work. Certainly not better than the consensus in his field. Vegan416 (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand your words all too well, thanks for the concern though. Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You can literally type unz.com into your browser and get articles like:

• Democracy Is an Ideal Government for Jewish Influence which opens with a quote from famous anti-Semite and white supremacist Adolf Hitler [3]
• The Jews Want You to Watch Them Mass Murdering Little Kids written by Andrew Anglin[4]
• The Primacy of Anti-Semitism, which argues for a "rational anti-Semitism" because the vast majority of social problems in America, in Europe, and in the West, are primarily (though not solely) due to Jewish manipulation and corruption. [5]

These are all on the front page of Unz right now. There's no need to bother with what reliable sources describe Unz as when its writers are openly proud of being anti-Semitic. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What is "the consensus in his field of research"? And what is Finkelstein's views that are far from that consensus? Levivich (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is valid for science. In any field of the humanities, it becomes far trickier, and this is particularly true of subjects with the potentiality for a high degree of political fallout. Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

But the same principles apply nonetheless. Otherwise you will not be able to make a distinction between acceptable theories and narratives and fringe theories and narratives. Vegan416 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

And there are too many comments here that veer from the issue, and show total unfamiliarity with Finkelstein's work and actual life, like 'It's actually not that complicated. It seems Finkelstein would gladly join hands with anyone who is anti-Israeli.' Those who have continued to follow his work all know that he is in bad odour with the BDS movement, and even friends otherwise critical of Israel like Tariq Ali. Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05

I agree of course with all you said. But my stress here was that the fact that he felt the need to publish there shows that he is far from the consensus. Vegan416 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Not for general statements, I would say that they're a reliable source but should be used with attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I note that all of the nonsense about him and the Unz Review speaks in the present tense, i.e. he is paid by, publishes in. . .The first item here is reproduced from Mondoweiss, and such appears to be the case with several others of the 13 items. We don't know of the financial relationship and payments for material of his which, clearly, he does not object to being reproduced there. This 'rumour-mongering' is amply evidenced in many hostile sources. Same with David Irving. He was considered an extremely promising and original young historian and later became a nutter. But some of his early work is first rate, if one trusts TLS reviews, and Finkelstein doesn't abide by a world of taboos and clichés that skewer this or forbid that. He exercises his judgment whatever some 'consensus' might tend to state. People who see the word 'consensus' on something and therefore on the strength of that word, adopt the said view (without troubling themselves to famniliarize themselves with the topic ) remind me of Nietzsche's remark that subscribing to public opinion is tantamount to not having a personal opinion. You can always rely of Finkelstein to provide, when asked, meticulously documentation for whgatever position he takes, which is rather rare these days, even among general commentators and academics.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Depending on the rights signed over to Mondoweiss, the material could be syndicated entirely without his permission. It's impossible to tell without knowing the terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nishidani

1. Actually according to the site 30 items by him were published there in the years 2015-2017. And the question of payments is not relevant at all. Even if he wasn't paid at all it is still quite telling that he was ready to associate his name with this site. In fact it might be even worse. People might be excused for doing silly things out of financial necessity, but doing silly things for free is more troublesome.
2. Your last comment against the "consensus" and about asking NF for documentation to check his claims seem to to contradict the logic behind WP:UNDUE and WP:OR.

Vegan416 (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe he just doesn't care where his material is published so long as it is broadcast for the world's attention. Finkelstein has always been substance over style, so it has to be considered that he simply didn't even deign to consider the petty bickering that might one day arise over the choice of venue – because a venue is all a website is. Just as when one is having a serious discussion in a pub, one doesn't tend to give a rat's arse what the political opinions of the pub's owners or frequent customers are. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe. But would you say the same thing if a pro-Israeli researcher would have published in this site? Anyway did NF ever explain his connections with this site? BTW even more shocking to me than everything he said about Israel, is his comparison between the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and Julius Streicher. Such a statement casts severe doubt about his professional judgment. https://aa.com.tr/en/politics/norman-finkelstein-charlie-hebdo-is-sadism-not-satire/82824

I think I'm finished with this discussion. Good night. Vegan416 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It's perfectly reasonable to dislike Charlie Hebdo cartoons. They're unwitty garbage, frequently bigoted and would have been best left in the 20th century. If they hadn't become a target, few in the world would ever have heard of them. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

You completely missed the point here. I didn't say that anyone has to like the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. But my point is that comparing Charlie Hebdo to Der Sturmer shows that NF doesn't understand even the basics of his alleged field of expertise - the holocaust. There is absolutely no similarity between the papers, their methods and their intention. Der Sturmer was an antisemitic paper aimed mostly against the Jews with the intention of encouraging violent persecution of them and even genocide. Charlie Hebdo is a satirical paper that intends to make fun of everyone - Jews, Christians, Muslims, and people from the right and from the left. And it has absolutely no violent or genocidal intentions. It is unhinged to say they are the same. Vegan416 (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Iskandar323, the Unz Foundation (which runs the site) awarded Finklestein $108,000 in 2009 alone, and has also paid him since then. I highly doubt his work there is being published without permission. Toa Nidhiki05 22:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Ron Unz funds anti-Zionist activists – that's not a news flash, and his website provides a venue for them. Freedom of speech. If you have been watching the news over the last six months, you may have noticed that media outlets that stray from a staunchly pro-Israeli government position are few and far between. All the ADL attests to, as linked above, is that some items on the site occasionally have a whiff of antisemitic trope to them and have been used by antisemites. So even an ADL entry on the subject leaning into the smearing only offers a very modest critique of the site. Meh. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Describing the Unz Review as a site that "occasionally have a whiff of antisemitic tropes" is at odds with reality. Go read The Primacy of Anti-Semitism which is currently on the front page of Unz. In it, the author says:

We can’t stop Jews or their sycophants from dishing out such labels, but we can undermine their effect by—embracing them. The global situation has now come to the point, I claim, where we can, we need, we must, take a resolutely anti-Jewish attitude, openly and explicitly. The time has come to be an open and courageous anti-Semite, and to take action consistent with this view, as I will explain.

He then proceeds to use several anti-Semitic tropes in describing Jews. If an article directly calling for anti-Semitism by name isn't an anti-Semitic article I don't know what is. Maybe Andrew Anglin's recent frontpage piece in Unz called The Jews Want You to Watch Them Mass Murdering Little Kids in which he denies the Holocaust and says bombing Gaza is as evil as being gay, because Jews are like homosexuals in that both are public exhibitionists (I'm paraphrasing, not agreeing). There are a lot of publications that are pro-Palestinian that aren't anti-Semitic. The Unz Review, however, openly brags about being both. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not really relevant what Unz is or isn't, because it's already deprecated and NF hasn't published there. There is content attributed to NF from 2015-2017, including three interviews and three series of articles syndicated from Byline. If NF was handed a large check for the privilege of the syndication, well ... ? He's a scholar, not a saint, and more online publication = more eyeballs on your ideas. But again, this is a dated, brief snapshot of a publishing period for some very specific content. It has little bearing on anything else, let alone NF's books published through university presses, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

In September 2018 Ron Unz, the owner of the site, published in the Unz Review an article blaming Israel for perpetrating the 9/11 attack. The Unz Review is a hotbed of crazy antisemitic conspiracy theories. The fact that Finkelstein worked with this site casts serious doubts on the soundness of his professional judgment. Vegan416 (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

If somebody tries to cite that feel free to challenge it. It has nothing to do with if a noted expert in the field of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a reliable source however. nableezy - 10:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It absolutely does matter that he writes there. Credible academics don't write for outlets like this. Toa Nidhiki05 12:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Benny Morris wrote something on American Thinker, Efraim Karsh as well. Does that mean they can’t be cited? Of course not, this is just an intellectually bankrupt attempt at censoring views one doesn’t like. Finkelstein’s work meets all the requirements to be considered a reliable source, and all that has been proven in this ridiculous sized section is that a handful of Wikipedia editors reaaaallllyyyy don’t like that. Tough. nableezy - 12:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say writing for American Thinker would be a red flag as well (to my knowledge, they've written a fawning profile of white nationalist Jared Taylor, although I don't know if they've ever stooped into outright neo-Nazism like Unz has), and I'd appreciate you not stoop so low to personal attacks. We're required to assume good faith, and declaring anyone who disagrees with you "intellectually bankrupt" people attempting to "censor" people is just not productive at all. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You aren’t the thought police here, you don’t get to decide that if some website makes a reliable source unusable for their association with it. There is nothing in WP:RS that backs up a thing you’re claiming. And criticizing your argument is not a personal attack. nableezy - 14:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the thought police, but it's incredibly rude to say that everyone who disagrees with you is "intellectually bankrupt" and trying to "censor" people. We have civility policies here, and I'd advise you follow them. Toa Nidhiki05 15:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I didnt say that, I said the argument used here is that. this is just an intellectually bankrupt attempt is not you are intellectually bankrupt. Id advise you to not continue making arguments divorced from our policies. The argument advanced here, that Finkelstein published work at some BadPlace™ makes it so his work that has been published by well regarded university presses is somehow no longer reliable is intellectually bankrupt, it would, if it were done with any consistency at all, would rule out a plethora of highly reliable sources, including Finkelstein and Benny Morris. That argument has no basis in anything resembling our policies and guidelines, it is a basic association fallacy and it is only being used here to attempt to rule out a scholarly source. Aka censoring views you dont want included. nableezy - 16:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not trying to censor anyone, and I don't appreciate you claiming I am. This is ridiculous. Toa Nidhiki05 21:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I only see three interviews and some syndicated content. That's not actually writing there AFAICS. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

He was paid $108,000 by Unz and additional sums later on. He's absolutely a writer there, or absolutely was one. Can you at least acknowledge Chess's point that the site does't just "occasionally have a whiff of antisemitic tropes"? Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Chess doesn’t have a point, or at least not a relevant one. nableezy - 14:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What's he written that's not an interview (not his writing) or syndicated content (originally published elsewhere)? The $108k figure you're flashing around is for an academic grant in 2013, not for writing in 2015-2017 (and the Free Beacon is also incidentally unreliable). Iskandar323 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

There are 30 articles by NF published by Unz, each saying they are published with his permission, all dated from the mid-2010s. He didn't write for Unz, it was one of his publishers. (Just noting this in the interests of accuracy, as I was the first person to mention Unz on this page, not intending it to become a focus of discussion, not sure any of this discussion is at all relevant to the original question posted in this section.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"Academic grant" by an organization that seeks to promote anti-Semitic falsehoods is a clear conflict of interest. Put it another way. The academic consensus in the medical field is that smoking causes cancer. Tobacco companies spent millions of dollars on academic grants to researchers through places like the Center for Indoor Air Research or the Tobacco Institute. Coincidentally, scientists affiliated with these institutes consistently published research that benefitted their sponsors and went against the academic consensus in their fields. Is it proper to cite them when they're following the tobacco industry playbook?

This is the same thing Norman Finkelstein has done:

1. The Unz Foundation's goal is to promote anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that go against the consensus of the academic community.
2. One of their goals in doing so is to promote the Palestinian cause.
3. Norman Finkelstein has taken money from the Unz Foundation for his research.
4. His research benefits the goals of Unz by promoting the Palestinian cause.
5. Like Unz, he promotes historical claims that are not in line with the consensus of academia.

I think the burden to prove that Finkelstein is unreliable isn't just that he takes money to promote Palestinian causes. That would be the association fallacy and there is nothing wrong with being pro-Palestinian. The burden is that that the organization is paying him to distort the historical record in support of the Palestinian cause. This is a high burden, but it's one that can be met.

Point 1 is easily proven by Unz posting anti-Semitic conspiracies about Jews doing 9/11. Point 2 can be seen by going on unz.com and looking at how their entire site is currently pro-Palestinian opinion pieces (that often use anti-Semitic tropes). [6] [7] [8] [https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/can-bibi-be-stopped/ Point 3 has been shown by Toa Nidhiki05 who quantified it as $108k. Point 4 is shown by the fact he publishes in Unz, thereby supporting them specifically and their goals. Most people here would also agree he takes a pro-Palestinian stance on the conflict (which isn't inherently wrong).

The only real dispute is over point 5. Has Unz influenced Norman Finkelstein to be less reliable? The answer is yes. In addition to what everyone else has said, since taking money from Unz, he praised Holocaust denier David Irving as a "very good historian" [9] and says students should be taught the controversy about the Holocaust. [10] This is against the scholarly consensus, to say the least. Going back to the start of this comment, it's similar to how the tobacco industry funds academics to invent a controversy over proven facts. Unz gave Finkelstein a bunch of money and now he spreads fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

1 to 4 has nothing to do with the discussion, 5 says "Like Unz", oh please. This just reads like I can't get him on anything else so I am going to get him because of an association with Unz. Irrelevant drivel. Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

One more time, not liking his views is emphatically not a criteria for his reliability, and you tried this guilt by association thing with Counterpunch as well. Finkelstein's work has been published in peer-reviewed journal articles and by respected university presses, he meets the requirements of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. No matter how many people say "but Unz", that remains the fact. There remains zero evidence that he has distort[ed] the historical record and you remarkably close to a BLP violation in writing that here. nableezy - 18:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Because my goodness, everything is broken and my attempt to fix it made everything worse, I'm so sorry.

• My view is he is very reliable for direct statements of fact about the I/P conflict, but higher-level analyses should be attributed, as they are stridently based in his very particular ideology and he does not make any efforts towards any notion of neutrality.

I haven't read or engaged much with his work about other topics, including the Holocaust.

I am flummoxed that people are seemingly freely casting aspersions about Finkelstein's reliability for statements of historical fact when there has been no evidence for why offered whatsoever. The closest we've gotten are the very appreciated notes by @FortunateSons and @Doug Weller, which I think are important to consider, but do not translate into outright skepticism of his reliability for the purpose stated above. Remsense诉 21:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no doubt we should use him for statements of fact, and indeed I think it would be a NPOV violation to deliberately exclude him. Doug Weller talk 07:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@RemsenseI don't understand what your view that he is "very reliable for direct statements of fact about the I/P conflict" is based on. Are you an expert in this field? The fact is that several leading experts in it have criticized his work very sharply.

Examples from here and here:

“No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites,” (Novick, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Feb. 7, 2001)

"Norman Finkelstein is a notorious distorter of facts and of my work, not a serious or honest historian." (Benny Morris)

"it is brimming with the same indifference to historical facts, inner contradictions, strident politics and dubious contextualizations" (Omer Bartov)

Furthermore, NF academic credentials look unimpressive even from a dry statistical analysis. He didn't manage to get tenure in any university. Most of his books are published in non academic avenues. And in an academic career of 40+ years it seems that he published only 19 articles in peer reviewed journals (according to this Jstor search, if you try to replicate the search. please take care not to confuse him with another scholar with the exact same name who is an expert in Jewish literature and is responsible for most of the articles there) and of these only 5 in the last 20 years. Vegan416 (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself ad infinitum. Have you ever read any book by Finkelstein, as apart from giving me at least the impression that the net is being scoured for dirt on him (this thread has taken on the lineaments of an attempt to conduct a trial on Finkelstein as a person rather than face the obvious fact that opn the I/P conflict he has distinguished himself by writing several forensic studies of the dissonance between the way information is packaged for one POV to damage the other POV, by measuring the disconnect between public rhetoric and the factual record?

That is all that interests us here, not vague guilt by association insinuations. That Unz picks up some of his interviews and republishes them or that he remarked on the dissonance between the way we viscerally react to the obscenity of the attack on Hebdo (and one still grieves to recall there the murder of Elsa Cayat) and how we would react were some inflamed Jews to make a similar lethal attack on a a paper routinely publishing antisemitic cartoons, is neither here nor there. He stated that while antisemitic cartoons are repulsive and universally condemned, cartoons that skewer by gross ethnic caricature a figure sacred to a billion Muslims evokes no such distaste. His point is WP:Systemic bias, and while I, for one,might perhaps strongly disagree, his analogy forced me to rethink a sensitive issue. That is one of the primary functions of controversialists. His scholarship uses other principles: few can find any factual misrepresentations in them. Thisa thread should be archived as unproductive, unfocused and all over the place without any prospect of conclusiveness. Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I might have wanted to respond to you but I kind of got lost in the postmodernist jungle of your second sentence... Anyway I agree that this discussion leads nowhere, so I'm leaving it. Vegan416 (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The most concrete concerns provided in your links regard his aforementioned quotation of Benny Morris et al. I will reproduce an example here, apologies in advance for excessive quotation, but I think a complete-ish example of what we're talking about is needed here:

Passages by Benny Morris (1987) and Finkelstein (2001)

In The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (1987)—which I think was the first book-length work on the subject, based on documents that were newly declassified at the time—while discussing the exodus of Palestinians from Haifa, Morris quotes a statement Ben-Gurion made in 1949. Here's both the footnote and the paragraph it's attached to: Mapam's Arab Department, probably in part on the basis of Krischer's report, in March analysed the Arab flight from Haifa. The department noted the Arabs' "fears ... for their future," both in the transitional pre-State period and under Jewish rule, and pointed out that it was mainly "Christians, professionals, officials" who were leaving. By 1 March, the mainly Christian districts of "Old Carmel" and Wadi Nisnas were "almost completely" empty. "The flight is less marked in the eastern parts of town, where the poorer classes, who are under the influence of the extremists, are concentrated," stated the Department. According to this analysis, the Christians were mainly worried about the transitional period, between the end of effective Mandate government and the start of effective Jewish government. They felt that they would then be "between the hammer and the anvil, the Arab terrorist operations and Jewish reactions." Arab public servants feared that their advancement would be blocked by their "lack of Hebrew." Arab railway workers worried about the fate of the railway under Jewish rule.[54] 54. LPA 48/23 aleph, protocol of the meeting of the Mapai Centre, statement by Ben-Gurion, 24 July 1948. Ben-Gurion's statement was revealing about his attitude to the Palestine Arabs, especially in the light of their behaviour and flight during the war. "Meanwhile," he said, "[a return] is out of the question until we sit together beside a [peace conference] table ... and they will respect us to the degree that we respect them and I doubt whether they deserve respect as we do. Because, nonetheless, we did not flee en masse. [And] so far no Arab Einstein has arisen and [they] have not created what we have built in this country and [they] have not fought as we are fighting ... We are dealing here with a collective murderer." Finkelstein in turn quotes this in his own footnote while discussing how he feels Morris's work dispels myths about the period while simultaneously creating new ones in his Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (2001): once more both footnote and a paragraph of context: Morris repeatedly warns readers to treat with extreme circumspection the diary entries and public pronouncements of Ben-Gurion, yet uncritically reports certain of his conclusions. Morris notes that Ben-Gurion's testimony cannot be trusted because he was ‘driven ... by concern for his place in history and the image of himself and the image of the new state he wished to project for posterity' (Birth, p. 165; cf. Birth, pp. 136, 218, 292–3, 329–30, note 24, 335, note 40; 1948, p. 113). For example he ridicules Ben-Gurion's repeated assertion in 1948 and 1949 that 'Israel has never expelled a single Arab' as ‘a lie that even the most gullible journalists and UN officials found hard to swallow' (Tikkun, p. 82) Indeed, Morris singles out Ben-Gurion’s own 'histories' (the quotation marks are Morris's) of the Yishuv and Israel's first years as the 'purest expression' of the highly tendentious 'old' history (1948, p. 5).[12] Yet he cites without irony or qualification the 'major political conclusion' (Morris's phrase) Ben-Gurion drew from the Arab exodus from Haifa and elsewhere. Speaking to the People’s Council in early May 1948, Israel's first prime minister made the claim that no Jewish settlement to date had been abandoned in the war – in contrast with 'some hundred Arab settlements'. The Arabs, Ben-Gurion asserted, had abandoned 'cities ... with great ease, after the first defeat, even though no danger of destruction or massacre ... confronted them. Indeed, it was revealed with overwhelming clarity which people is bound with strong bonds to this land' (Birth, pp. 4–5) In fact, as we shall see presently, virtually every Arab settlement was abandoned precisely because of the 'danger of destruction or massacre'. What is more, at the exact moment that Ben-Gurion was sounding this 'major political conclusion', the Palmah was massacring some seventy Arab prisoners near Ein az Zeitun and several Arabs in the village itself (Birth, pp. 102, 321, note 133). 12. Another reason that Ben-Gurion’s testimony cannot be trusted is that he was so extreme a racist, indeed, comically so. Thus, he observed that Arabs were not entitled to the same respect accorded Jews because 'so far no Arab Einstein has arisen. ... We are dealing here with a collective murderer' (Birth, p. 331, note 54). Incidentally, Morris's study reveals that even the findings of Zionists renowned for their sympathy with the Palestinian Arabs must be handled with some caution. Thus a Mapam leader and secretary of the League for Arab—Jewish Rapprochement and Cooperation, Aharon Cohen, early on in the Arab exodus sought to minimize the responsibility of the Haganah by faulting the British for 'sow[ing] panic' among the Arabs – a claim for which there is apparently no supporting evidence (Birth, p. 317, note 73; cf. Birth, p. 319, note 93). Cohen’s contention in this regard is consistent with the central thesis of his major study, Israel and the Arab World, New York 1970, namely that the British were the villains of the Palestinian tragedy – a claim for which the evidence is equally scanty. Cohen and the Mapam became convinced by mid-1948 that the de facto Zionist leadership was engaged in a systematic expulsion policy; see pp. 74–5 above. Really hoping this doesn't amount to copyvio, it's the smallest usable chunk I could directly honestly point to, I can't quote any further spidering of cross-references—but I hope this is at least an illustrative core of what we're talking about here. I simply am not able to see this as a dishonest distortion of either Morris or Ben-Gurion, to the best of my ability. It is simply a biased analysis. I don't really see it as sloppy scholarship, either. If one did have an issue with this, I cannot really wrap my head around it would amounting to a persuasive piece of evidence toward wholly disqualifying Finkelstein as a RS for the scope I've mentioned. References

There are inherent limits to rejecting making your own judgments as to uphold WP:NPOV. I am not an expert in anything, never mind I/P, but I am fairly literate. That's what these discussions are for, we can and should pass most of the buck to reliable sources, but ultimately we have to operate the scales when weighing them. That's all I've done. Remsense诉 14:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense, as I told @Nishidani,

1. I was thinking of leaving this discussion. But since you took the trouble to respond to me at length I'll reciprocate and stay here. However, I 'm not sure I understand the purpose of the quotes you brought. I didn't mention his example in my comments, and I don't know where you got it from. I just brought the general opinions of these scholars (Morris, Novick, Bartov) on the quality of NF work, without mentioning any details. Starting to go over particular examples and checking them ourselves is original research. Are we sure we want to get into that?
2. However if nevertheless you want to go into specific examples then it does seem that in this case he misrepresented Morris at least. If I understand correctly what's going on (which is hard from this partial text) it seems NF claims that BM said that BG was racist whereas I don't see that BM said that. And here is an example of another error in NF work, this time quite egregious, that can be easily understood without being an expert. He claimed in one of his books that prior to 1967 only two Jewish American intellectuals supported Israel. This is patently false as is proven at length here. (The quotes from Einstein are particularly interesting to me since, coincidentally, I made a few edits on Einstein views on Zionism several weeks ago without any relation to NF. The fact that Einstein was pro-Zionist is very well known and it is bizarre that NF seems to have been unaware of it.

Vegan416 (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I just brought the general opinions of these scholars (Morris, Novick, Bartov) on the quality of NF work, without mentioning any details. Starting to go over particular examples and checking them ourselves is original research. Are we sure we want to get into that?

To be clear, no it is not: it's a basic discussion and interpretation of sources so we can figure out how to use them; as I've said, this is required in editing unless there's some way to fairly represent sources without interpreting them first that I'm not aware of. Original research would be if this went into an article itself as wikivoice analysis.

The "two Jewish American intellectuals" claim is a bit of a head-scratcher for me, I will freely admit. Remsense诉 15:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Camera is yet another crap source, proving nothing at all. Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

But as @Remsense said the discussion here is not bound by the regular rules of WP:OR and WP:RS. We are now on a mission of fact checking to determine the reliability of a source, not of writing an article. So do you suggest that when CAMERA quote NF as saying that there were only two Jewish American intellectuals who supported Israel before 1967 it is a fake quote and he didn't write this in his book?

Taking a break for a while, but I will return Vegan416 (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying: the above was an example cited in numerous places, including Camera. I'm basically just reproducing it here so we know a little directly about what the field is. Sorry for not being clear about that. Remsense诉 16:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No hurry. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You are not going to convince anyone that NF is unreliable based on a couple of examples of details that you claim (without sources) are incorrect. Aside from the blatant cherrypicking of your approach (versus addressing NF's entire corpus of work), even pointing to a couple of errors would not make NF not reliable. Generally reliable means generally correct, not infallible. To attest NF as not GREL, you will need to prove a well-evidenced pattern of errance running through his entire body of scholarly work, or find a source that has already demonstrated the same. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Remsense, can you explain what these extracts are showing? I don't think we can determine general reliability ourselves via close analysis of extracts. Presumably, if you showed us some carefully chosen extracts of David Irving, we might think it looks reliable. This is why we avoid original research but go with the scholarly consensus. You've said that NF is a leader in his field, and the way to show this would be to show that a considerable body of reputable scholars in his field (the fields raised by the OP were the Holocaust and Israel/Palestine) consider him a good source and that few consider him dishonest or sloppy. I don't think you can do this based on close reading of his own work. Or is your intention to show he's better than Morris? But that's irrelevant here, as that's not the question at hand. Maybe I'm missing the point? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

My point is this is the most persuasive critique of the reliability of Finkelstein's work by his peers for our purposes that I've read so far. I have reproduced it here so people can more easily begin analyzing what we are talking about. Remsense诉 19:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Scholars who cite Finkelstein

Let's look at what we're actually supposed to be looking at:

• Nur Masalha 2012, pp. 79, 180-181, 192 (citing Finkelstein's 1991, 1995, and 2001 works)
• Benny Morris 2004/1988, p. 64 (citing Finkelstein 1991)
• Ilan Pappe 2017, pp. 78 ("As Norman Finkelstein has rightly noted, if you wanted to destroy what was left of the Jordanian army and retain your relationship with the one Arab country most loyal to Israel, a short operation in the West Bank, without occupying it, would have sufficed.") and 147 ("In his typical way Norman Finkelstein takes the official narrative of Israel as presented by one of its best articulators, Abba Eban, and demolishes it.")
• Rosemary Sayigh 2013, p. 58 "Norman Finkelstein’s loss of his post at Hunter College and tenure denial at DePaul University is only the best known of numberless cases of dismissal, suspension, and delays in the appointment of junior faculty who have ventured into the forbidden realm of Palestinian studies."
• Rashid Khalidi 2020, p. 252 ("The book was mercilessly eviscerated in reviews by Norman Finkelstein, Yehoshua Porath, and numerous other scholars, who all but called it a fraud.") and p. 290 "Two excellent books on the Gaza wars are Norman Finkelstein, Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom (Oakland: University of California Press, 2018)..."
• Avi Shlaim 2009, p. 369 "Finkelstein's career illustrates the venom with which the debate about Israel is conducted in America. Finkelstein is one of the most hard-hitting critics of the official Zionist version of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But while he uncompromisingly rejects the Zionist colonial project beyond the Green Line, he fully accepts Israels legitimacy within its pre-1967 borders. His position is coherent and consistent. Finkelstein specialises in exposing spurious American-Jewish scholarship on the Arab-Israeli conflict."
• Ahmad H. Sa'di 2007, p. 305 "Nonetheless the recent surge of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism in the West following the events of 9/11 and the United States’ pursuant wars in Afghanistan and Iraq enabled Dershowitz to resurrect these myths, requiring Finkelstein (2005) to painstakingly debunk them yet again."
• Ronit Lentin 2010, pp. 109-110 " Indeed Morris’s failure to ‘join the dots’ and see that the mass of documentation that he unearthed points to a policy of expulsion has been severely criticised (Pappe 1992; Finkelstein 1995) as has his failure to contextualise the events of 1948 within the overall framework of the Zionist plans for transfer (Masalha 2003) ... Indeed, right-wing Israeli intellectuals are increasingly comfortable with the idea that their country was built on ethnic cleansing (Gutwein 2002) with Morris expressing his disappointment that the Nakba was not more thorough (Shavit 2004; for a trenchant critique of Morris see Finkelstein 1995)."
• Neve Gordon et al. 2020, pp. 245 and 259 (citing Finkelstein 2018)
• Neil Caplan 2019, ch. 4 ("For important critiques of this work, see Finkelstein, N.G. (2001)."), ch. 12 ("In the US, nationwide campaigns were organized with the aim of destroying the professional reputations of, or denying tenure to, outspokenly pro‐Palestinian academics like Norman Finkelstein, Joseph Massad, and Nadia Abu El-Haj."), and elsewhere
• Mark Tessler 2009, pp. 879-880 "For a forceful rebuttal to Morris's conclusion, which contends that the Israeli scholar's own documentation demonstrates the existence of a systematic Zionist plan to expel the Palestinians, see Norman Finkelstein, "Myths, Old and New," Journal of Palestine Studies 81 (Autumn 1991): 66—89. This issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies also contains another critique of Morris's study and a strong response by Morris. A further rejoinder by Finkelstein appears in volume 82 of the journal."
• Bashir Bashir and Amos Goldberg 2018, p. 37 (citing The Holocaust Industry)
• Helena Linholm Schulz 2003, p. 30 "Palestinian (and other) authors have challenged the main line of Morris’s argument, arguing that Zionist policy was before, during and after the war bent on ‘transfer’ or ‘expulsion’ of the Palestinian population from Palestine (Finkelstein et al. 1991; W.Khalidi 1992; Masalha 1992, 1997a, 2001)."
• Jerome Slater 2020, p. 432 (citing Norman Finkelstein, “The Camp David II Negotiations,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Winter 2007.)
• Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian 2019, pp. 110 and 115 (citing Finkelstein 2015 and 2018)
• Marouf Hasian Jr. 2020, p. 2 (quoting Finkelstein 2007)
• Marcy Jane Knopf-Newman 2011, pp. 21, 47, 79, 114 (extensive quotation from and discussion of The Holocaust Industry)

This wasn't methodical, just searching my personal collection of works for "Finkelstein". Levivich (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, my apologies to the community, I should have just done this first, instead of spending days arguing with people on the internet. Levivich (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Allkpop

What is the reliability of Allkpop for K-pop-related articles?

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

Allkpop is the English-language K-pop and celebrity gossip site and fan blog owned by 6Theory Media, which also owns Tokyohive. The site contains extensive Korean culture-related news coverage and rumours that are aimed at non-Korean audiences, this does not itself as a generally reliable source and also claims to be cited by major news organizations. They also made occasional interviews and special reports, which counts as first-hand journalism. It also licensed to stream MAMA Awards. I consider the site itself was generally unreliable for K-pop articles.

allkpop.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 sjh (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You should provide more context but here's all the previous discussions that are about allkpop: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

It's also listed under WP:WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources#UR as being unreliable although that's just a Wikiproject. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: Some articles like this are poor for using as a source. Although this site publishes rumours and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts, however, some information on this site may or may not be true and Allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of the claims. sjh (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

If the site itself doesn't consider itself reliable I fail to see how it can be considered reliable for Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

“Makes no warranty as to validity” is just a standard legalese disclaimer; websites of many RS have similar disclaimers. Judge reliability based on substance. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Allkpop)

Let's see... this article describes Allkpop as the "latest celebrity gossips and news" and the website claims to be "the premier source for all the latest K-pop celebrity gossip and news". This website is generally unreliable (option 3), and for the love of God, please do not use this in a BLP. That's a disaster waiting to happen. Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 12:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Davest3r08: That's fine if other reliable sources like this can be used in a BLP too. sjh (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I Agree with @Davest3r08Davest3r08 Slacker13 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Option 3: Super Unreliable. WikiProject Korea deems it unreliable and it is a celebrity gossip site. Definitely should not be used in BLPs, like ever. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 - generally unreliable:. Per various arguments provided above. Shadowwarrior8 Shadowwarrior8 21:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Option 3: generally unreliable. A good amount of their articles are sourced from unreliable Korean sites like Insight or Wikitree (relevant pages in Korean here and here respectively; though they're from the user-generated wiki NamuWiki, the articles are good for getting a feel on how the sites are viewed), and the other half is gossip pulled from biased, even less reliable K-netizen translation sites. Their third hottest article at the time of writing is this gossipy, substanceless mess. I'm having a hard time finding any coverage up to par with actual news outlets such as Korea Herald - just gossip, gossip, and more gossip. Wuju Daisuki (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Allkpop)

Hi SarahJH07, I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading to prevent confusion since this discussion was not set up as a formal request for comment, which would solicit input from editors through the feedback request service. If you would like to make this discussion a request for comment, please apply the {{rfc}} template to this discussion according to the instructions at WP:RFCST and add "RfC:" back to the section heading. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 21:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six)

What is the reliability of entertainment coverage, including reviews, from the New York Post (nypost.com  ) and its sub-publications Decider (decider.com  ) and Page Six (pagesix.com  )?

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

— Newslinger talk 21:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Added Page Six to RfC question per Endwise's suggestion in the discussion section. In your response, please clearly specify the publication and/or sub-publications that your evaluation refers to, and the types of coverage (e.g. film reviews, celebrity news) that you are evaluating. — Newslinger talk 03:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Entertainment coverage of the New York Post)

• Option 3 or Option 4. There is no need to make a carveout for the New York Post. The Post's entertainment coverage is part of it being a gossip tabloid at absolute best. This is not a paper of quality or renown. Given that so much of its entertainment coverage is about living persons, and the previous RFC noted the Post's fondness for fabrication, allowing any such carveout is likely to be a WP:BLP danger. There's a consistent flow of fresh BLP-violating trash from the Post, especially from Page Six but also from the rest of the paper/site. I would suggest the safest thing is to deprecate its entertainment coverage entirely. At the least, we must note that the New York Post must not be used for any statement concerning living persons - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• I don't know enough to speak on the Post, but for Decider, I'd say option 2. Some of their articles are clickbaity gossip and tend to over-dramatize stories (for instance, this), but those tend to fall under WP:TABLOID. On the other hand, they have some longer-form articles/interviews (example 1, example 2) and reviews (example) that seem perfectly fine and where I have no reason to suspect their reliability. Given that the least reliable articles seem to come from sources that shouldn't be used in any case, I see no reason to extend the "generally unreliable" moniker to all Decider articles. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. I've found the NY Post entertainment coverage to be mostly gossipy and i'd avoid it... In fact really all i would use the Post for is sports coverage, which is mostly ok as they employ some good sports writers.. everything else there I would avoid. Spanneraol (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Question - what does "entertainment" mean in this RFC? Celebrity gossip or film reviews?  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah... +1. For example this article from NYPost is a pretty standard concert review (not unlike other such reviews they post), and I'd have no issues with someone using it on Pixies (band). The celeb gossip crap posted on NYPost, Decider, and Pagesix.com is a different beast however and something I'd probably argue is generally unreliable. Endwise (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  I assumed we were talking about entertainment news reporting rather than reviews. Spanneraol (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  This RfC examines all entertainment coverage (including the entire scope of Decider) from these publications, which encompasses both film reviews and celebrity news. If you consider one of these publications to be more reliable for some topics than others, please say so. Please be detailed and specific in your responses, so the RfC closer can carefully evaluate the responses and give a comprehensive closing statement. — Newslinger talk 03:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2, weakly – The Post is tabloid-y but entertainment as a whole has elements of tabloid-y content. For instance, if I was working on an article about internet slang such as Looksmaxxing, I wouldn't have much of an issue using The Post for some cultural reception info. Also concurring with Endwise, I wouldn't have an issue with it for music or a film review. Celeb gossip shouldn't really be used from any tabloid anyway? I don't know much to speak on the other ones. TLA^tlak 03:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 on Decider and Page Six. I can't find many (or any significant) examples of RS referencing its reporting based on a cursory Google News search for terms like "Decider reported" or "according to Decider", etc. That said, I also can't find any instances of its reporting being specifically identified as inaccurate or unreliable. Given that, I think Option 3 is the best bet. Chetsford (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC); edited

03:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. I understand why the New York Post can be problematic, but film/music/television/etc reviews are fine. I guess we have to explicitly allow that carve out so overzealous editors don't go around removing them. Jessintime (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. Frankly I don't see the reason why reviews from well known film critics (like the Kyle Smith (critic) listed above) or interviews that asks the right questions cannot be used as a primary source just because they are posted onto an unreliable platform. S5A-0043^Talk 11:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. I'm the person who started the Decider question, as pointed out by the discussion below. Most of the entertainment articles from the sub-publications seem to be from established journalists so I do not have a problem with those, but if contentious claims are made, maybe using that source is not the best. It's kind of like the Screen Rant situation. Spinixster (chat!) 13:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. Because the general matter is already under discussion in the unclosed previous post, because a pro-censorship result on this guideline page is not policy and cannot override WP:NOTCENSORED, because it's not clear what's "entertainment" (to me sports is entertainment), because context matters; because blanket bans bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 Applies to Decider only. CapnZapp (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 They may not be reliable for facts but reviews are opinions. It's a case-by-case basis as to whether the review deserves inclusion such as the author and their credentials. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 5: No formal determination is necessary. Sometimes the paper has smart stuff in it, and sometimes it has dumb stuff in it. If people are incapable of understanding this, they shouldn't be writing encyclopedia articles. Moreover, there's no amount of bureaucratic source classification that's going to make them capable of doing so. jp×g🗯️ 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2: Only for entertainment proposes. Nothing more. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 I'd continue to steer far away from the Post for general news, especially politics and CTOPs; however, for entertainment news/reviews, the points raised by Jessintime and Traumnovelle stand. The Kip 06:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 (entertainment to be construed broadly and include sport and celebrity) their political issues are well known, but the points above, inclusion with attribution may be valid in cases where they aren’t highly controversial and the reviewer is acceptable. FortunateSons (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 I am not a fan of carveouts like this for sources that we already consider generally unreliable. The editorial standards for entertainment news are highly unlikely to be better than for any other topic, so what we're really saying here is that it matters less for the topic of entertainment than for other topics, and I don't really buy that. I also notice a lot of the "option 2" votes above really seem to be about reviews specifically, which are already allowed (with attribution) because they're opinion and not factual. I'd therefore say most of the option two arguments here fall under the "generally" in "Generally unreliable".----Licks-rocks (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 - As per others, and to allow us to exercise judgement from time to time while avoiding automated or semi-automated censorship.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Reviews are inherently opinions even if they can be considered expert opinion. I don't see any reason why we would avoid using the NYP reviews but might use reviews from many other sources. For example, why refuse a NYP movie review but accept one from say a Huston news paper? BTW, this is also one of the flaws with our RSP blanket RfCs. They are often way too broad when we should be looking at claims on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. Of course exceptions can exist, just like for any unreliable source, but it's necessary to actually present and articulate those exceptions on a case-by-case basis; the default is unreliable. WP:RSOPINION content still requires some degree of reliability - we need to be confident that the source will not publish opinions that make egregiously incorrect statements, that they at least tend towards hiring people who know what they're talking about, and so on. In-text attribution alone is not a substitute for this reliability. And the Post doesn't reach that threshold - publication there, whether as a review or an opinion or whatever, confers no reliability. It can still be cited occasionally, but only in the same way that Reddit posts or YouTube videos or blogs or personal websites can be cited - publication there means nothing because they lack rigorous editorial controls and the reputation that would give their masthead meaning. And like those, that means the default can only be "unreliable." --Aquillion (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I think "entertainment" is too broad a category. There's a massive difference between "review of a film/TV show" and "tabloid coverage of celebrities", both of which could fall under "entertainment". I wouldn't be particularly bothered if the NYPost's reviews were found to be usable, but I don't think this RfC should be taken as an endorsement of using tabloid gossip sources about celebrities. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 - The default is unreliable unless there is some reason to think otherwise. Everyone has an opinion. I certainly have never heard of the NYP as a goto source for entertainment (other than their often humorous views on politics and economics). O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I think this RfC as worded is maybe unnecessary. It seems clear the community thinks GUNREL sources like NYPost can still be usable (depending on context) for something like film/music reviews, but probably we should've already known that. I think a more useful consensus to come to for the actual issue at hand would've been something like "it is not appropriate for David Gerard to blanket delete all uses of NYPost without regard to the context, and he should stop". Endwise (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 Journalism is, by its nature, not highly reliable and so each case needs to be judged on its merits. Looking at a sample used in the article Entertainment Weekly, I'm not seeing any particular cause for concern. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 per Chetsford and Aquillion, basically. Entertainment news coverage must be evaluated by our standards for factual reporting, including WP:BLP, and there, the Post doesn't really have a leg to stand on. For reviews, as opposed to news, the default presumption should be that they are simply unnecessary. The case-by-case burden is on those who wish to include them. WP:RSOPINION content still requires some degree of reliability - we need to be confident that the source will not publish opinions that make egregiously incorrect statements, that they at least tend towards hiring people who know what they're talking about, and so on, as Aquillion argues. In broad strokes, opinions published in venues whose factual reporting is generally unreliable aren't opinions that we need to cover. If I'm a subject-matter expert in one area, my personal blog might be an acceptable source for exceedingly uncontroversial statements in that area, but there would still be no reason to cite my blog post reviewing a movie I happened to see. My blog would be "generally unreliable" outside very narrow limits; using it as a source for unrelated opinions would be unencyclopedic. XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 for reviews, no change for "entertainment news", Page Six or Decider. When deciding whether to include a review, the core question is whether the reviewer is someone who's opinion carries weight. If a noteworthy critic like Richard Roeper took a contract writing film reviews published in the NY Post, the reliability and importance of his review isn't altered by the venue it is posted in. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 2, since no examples of falsehoods have been provided by the editors who voted for 3/4, and due to the presence of well-known critics, per u:S5A-0043. Alaexis_¿question? 22:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. Its reviews are fine, and they tend to carry some weight among critics (particularly so for the New York City musical/theatre arts scene). Additional considerations apply because there are some broader problems when using for contentious information on BLPs, but I think that the culture and entertainment reviews are fine. The notion that, as one editor puts above the New York Post must not be used for any statement concerning living persons is a bit overkill when applied to mundane information (who the lead actors are in a Broadway play, etc.), and I would stress that such language is a gross oversimplification of the source's utility in this scope. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC
• Option 3 I would say to generally just avoid unreliable sources for everything, including reviews. It's not worth the time and effort to look at every article and decide whether it is acceptable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)*
• Option 2, Most sources need additional considerations. The sources/articles should be looked at upon their own merits. Grahaml35 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 for Decider. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Conditional Option 2, otherwise Option 3 - I'm basically going to copy what I wrote when a similar thread came up about NYPost's sports coverage last April: Support a carve-out for entertainment, which is sufficiently tame/reliable from what I've seen. Two exceptions which would need to be included in the RSP entry for me to support option 2: (1) nothing from the prurient/scandalous side of the Post (e.g. objectifying female actors), and (2) nothing with any overlap with politics (diversity/representation in Hollywood, the Times Up movement, reviews of movies that deal with political issues, etc.). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 - If this was about the NY Post sports section it should be option 1. But while there are tabloid elements to the Post's entertainment section, there is no evidence that it is generally unreliable. There is certainly no reason a review in the Post should be considered unreliable. Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Entertainment coverage of the New York Post)

The New York Post has been discussed nine times on this noticeboard, including a 2020 RfC which concluded that the source was "Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly NYC politics with 2 qualifications: a/that it was more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and that it is particularly unreliable for coverage involving the NYC police". Discussion at #Reviews from unreliable sources indicates that there is an ongoing disagreement over the reliability of the New York Post's entertainment reviews, and the currently unanswered question at #Using Decider / Decider.com for interviews and reviews indicates that the reliability of Decider (a publication of the New York Post) is an open question. — Newslinger talk 21:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. — Newslinger talk 22:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio. — Newslinger talk 22:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

NYP I don't read and so have no opinion. I sometimes read Decider's "stream it or skip it" and haven't gotten any feeling their reviews are noticeably inferior to most other entertainment venues... What would be the justification for changing Decider's entertainment coverage to "generally unreliable" or "deprecated"? I am asking because this discussion needs to clearly summarize any reasons put forward to blacklist this site (and "please read several miles of previous discussion, it's all up there" doesn't cut it). CapnZapp (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any proposal to blacklist Decider. Since Decider is operated by the New York Post, which was found to be generally unreliable for factual reporting in the 2020 RfC, one of the goals of the current RfC is to determine whether Decider should be considered likewise or otherwise. — Newslinger talk 23:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this should also cover pagesix.com, a celebrity gossip site ran by NYPost which does entertainment reviews as well. Endwise (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Checking the page, it seems like the only (if not primary writer) right now is Nicholas Hautman, and per his about page, He joined the New York Post in 2021 after nearly six years at Us Weekly, where he started his career. He graduated from Hofstra University on Long Island in 2016 with a bachelor's degree in journalism. Spinixster (chat!) 01:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable suggestion, since Page Six is already listed as a sub-publication of the New York Post at WP:PAGESIX. I've added Page Six to the RfC. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 03:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

 Do not pre-empt any conclusions Please don't act as if your preference has already achieved consensus, User:David Gerard, as you did here. Your edit summary NYP is generally unreliable, prima facie WP:UNDUE is inaccurate. The current (pre-discussion) consensus is that NYP is generally unreliable "for factual reporting especially with regard to politics", not that it is generally unreliable in every aspect. CapnZapp (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

"generally" means "generally", not "not generally" - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

No it does not. Generally means generally only when there are no qualifiers. Otherwise those be pointless to add. Do not ignore the qualifiers. This entire RfC relies on the fact that you are wrong. CapnZapp (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with some users, David Gerard. You have been removing reviews on film article that come from the New York Post without any consideration of the consequences behind that and you did so by your own biased views of the reliability of the sourcing of New York Post. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

His editing history is especially egregious since he participated in this very discussion and still went ahead and made his edits, as if this wasn't still an open RfC that could possibly rule against his wishes. If and when it does, I hope and trust he will self-revert all his premature edits. CapnZapp (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I can understand David Gerard's point of view based on the phrasing of the 2020 RfC's closing summary. For example, the sentence "Gambling is generally a poor financial decision, especially when the gambler is in debt" states two things: that gambling is generally a poor financial decision, and that gambling is generally an even worse financial decision for gamblers who are in debt. Likewise, "Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics" means that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, and that it is generally unreliable to an even greater extent for political reporting. This RfC seeks to clarify whether the New York Post's entertainment coverage should be considered differently. — Newslinger talk 21:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"generally unreliable for factual reporting" means just that. It does not mean "generally unreliable" full stop. Otherwise those three words "for factual reporting" would not have been added. There is no uncertainty about what the earlier RfC meant. It specifically spelled out "factual reporting" meaning that the "generally unreliable" rating only applies to that. Other stuff - like entertainment - was specifically excluded from the decision. David Gerard didn't read it that way but that doesn't mean his reading is valid. Just to be crystal clear: This RfC does not seek to "clarify" this as if the earlier RfC was unclear. It can, however, seek clarification since the earlier RfC did not apply to entertainment articles. I trust and hope you and I agree on this, Newslinger. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Factual reporting does not exclude entertainment reporting. For example, Decider exclusively focuses on entertainment reporting, yet still publishes plenty of non-review articles that only make factual claims. The New York Post's and Decider's reviews and recommendations also contain factual claims, as most reviews do. The 2020 RfC's closing summary said that the New York Post is "Generally unreliable for factual reporting", and it did not say that the New York Post was any more reliable for entertainment reporting than it was for most topics, so the 2020 RfC was clear that the New York Post was considered generally unreliable for entertainment reporting as well. The current RfC offers editors an opportunity to re-evaluate the reliability of the New York Post's entertainment coverage. — Newslinger talk 13:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You yourself started this RfC quoting the current status quo: "Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics". This can only be read as the RfC taking a position on "factual reporting". Obviously facts can and will appear in reviews, but you didn't start this RfC to discuss the fringe cases when an editor cites a NYP review to verify a factual claim, you presumably started this RfC to see whether the community wants to discourage editors from using NYP reviews in entertainment articles. The context right here is David Gerard trying to justify his jumping the gun by saying that the earlier RfC does mean this already, but we should not express any understanding for that POV - we are specifically talking about it here and now, so taking action before allowing this discussion to conclude is obviously premature. CapnZapp (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if you mean the complete opposite, that NYP was previously considered generally unreliable overall but you want to see whether the community can exclude entertainment from that assessment, his actions remain just as premature - trying to get his edits in before this RfC changes the status quo is frowned upon, to say the least. (If this is your stance, our RS/P summary should have read "generally unreliable" full stop with no qualifiers) CapnZapp (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This User:David Gerard is just wasting a lot of people's time here on Wikipedia with his BS editing based on his own personal views; he tags pages for speedy deletion when there is zero reason to do so, removes content out of the blue, engages in edit wars; will someone block him or should we keep wasting time to keep this bully at bay? Itemirus (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I blocked this editor for personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Middle East Monitor

The New York Times recently published an article on the proliferation of fake news from Russia, specifically a story about Zelensky’s mother-in-law purchasing a villa in Egypt.

Most sources that publicized this claim are already considered generally unreliable, with the exception of the Middle East Monitor, which is used widely on Wikipedia and whose involvement the New York Times describes as:

It also appeared on the website of the Middle East Monitor, or MEMO, operated by a well-known nonprofit organization in London and financed by the government of Qatar. A journalist who once reported from Moscow for The Telegraph of London, Ben Aris, cited it at length on the platform, though, when challenged, he said he had just made note of the rumor. “I don’t have time to check all this stuff myself,” he wrote.

The article is still up, meaning they've failed to correct the error when it was revealed to them, and the statement by Aris is highly concerning, which suggests a general issue at MEMO of them publishing and promoting fringe conspiracy theories without any attempt to verify that they are true. BilledMammal (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your summary, this is highly concerning particularly combined with the (probably fringe) views described in the page.

I would consider this worthy of an RfC after insofar as criteria are met, is that something you would agree with? FortunateSons (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a misuse of the board. Instead of asking "Is source X reliable for statement Y" as is the norm, we instead assert unreliability without reference to any dispute. Cheered on by the chorus. Is the offending information cited to MEMO anywhere on WP? Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

All the MEMO report says is that El Mostaqbal reported this. And they did. And it also says The allegations have been denied by both the Ukrainian embassy in Egypt as “Russian propaganda”, while Orascom Development, the owner of the El Gouna resort issued a statement saying the reports were “completely false.”' MEMO does not report that this is true, they report that it was reported and that the both the Ukrainian embassy and the Egyptian government denied it. All of that is true. nableezy - 16:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That seems fine then. I wouldn't say this could cast any doubt on a source's reliability.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It attributes some to El Mostaqbal; others it puts in its own voice:

Al-Alawi’s body was discovered in the Red Sea city of Hurghada, with fractures and bruises found on the body. The cause of death was due to a cerebral hemorrhage as a result of a severe brain injury.

Al-Alawi never existed, and was not found dead, whether by a cerebral haemorrhage or other means.

In a recent interview, the deceased’s brother Ahmed Al-Alawi said that Mohammed’s investigation was his brother’s first big job, but that he started to receive death threats following its release.

Al-Alawi, having never existed, also never had a brother.

Further, regardless of what it puts in its own voice and what it attributes, I find it very concerning for a source to be pushing fringe conspiracy theories without any level of scepticism, and for it to fail to correct that error when it is raised with them - to me, those are indications that the source is generally unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it attributes that too. You're quoting out of context. What it says about the body is Al-Alawi’s body was discovered in the Red Sea city of Hurghada, with fractures and bruises found on the body. The cause of death was due to a cerebral hemorrhage as a result of a severe brain injury. The report, citing a source, also disclosed that the journalist had been beaten by a group of people. That is, once again, citing the report. And there is no error in what they report, they are saying that so and so reported such and such. And that is true. They also say that so and so say it is Russian propaganda. That is also true. Your claim that they are "pushing fringe conspiracy theories" is completely unsubstantiated, they are relaying what was reported and attributing it to who reported it, and also attributing who says it is not true. It has a link to the interview, making that attributed as well. You are misrepresenting what they are reporting. nableezy - 22:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No, that is attributing to the report that "the journalist" had been beaten by a group of people. It's not attributing the claim that he died.

Further, the interview is linked, but MEMO is saying in its own voice that the interview was given by Al-Alawi's brother - the brother who doesn't exist.

Regardless, is it not concerning that MEMO spends so little time verifying its stories that it is literally pushing Russian conspiracy theories, stories that it refuses to retract? This is not the behavior of a reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It is very clearly saying all this is from the report. You can tell that by the word "also". What is there to retract? That El Mostaqbal reported this? They did. nableezy - 22:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

My reading differs - the "also" refers to their earlier explicit mention of the report. And what there is to retract is the entire story; they are presenting - and thus promoting - Russian conspiracy theories as credible, saying things such as the report disclosed rather then the report alleges. The fact that they attribute parts (but not all - clearly you at least agree that the story presents both Al-Alawi and his brother as real people) doesn't change that. BilledMammal (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The story they are "presenting" is that El Mostaqbal reported this. That remains true. At most it is missing a "purported" in front of brother when linking to the interview. They very clearly are reporting who said what, and who said its not true. They even include the claim that it is Russian propaganda. There isnt any part of what they are actually reporting that is an issue. nableezy - 23:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That really isn’t how an average person would read the article, and even if it was, their statement and lack of retraction is nevertheless a reason not to use them in any area with controversy. FortunateSons (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Im aware of your feelings on sources you dislike, along with your efforts to remove them from certain topics, you dont need to repeat them multiple times in the same section. There isnt anything in this to retract, what they reported is accurate, and I see no reason why this source is not perfectly usable. If you feel they should issue a correction there is a link at the bottom of the story for you to contact them. nableezy - 23:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Even you agree they present the brothers as real people; don’t you think they need to retract that?

And the NYT has already contacted them; their response was concerning, as I quoted above. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That doesn’t appear to be true at all. nableezy - 13:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Which aspect? BilledMammal (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

That it is their response and not some independent reporter's who writes for a different site. nableezy - 13:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if we disagree on that I hope you can see their failure to retract this story as concerning. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That is certainly different from using “alleged” at the very least, if they are using such a source. Additionally, the conduct described above is certainly still concerning. FortunateSons (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Selfstudier that this discussion seems a misuse of the noticeboard. It is not relevant to some article and the publication isn't in RSP. But looking at the dicussion the thought occurred to me, I bet it has to do with NGO Monitor, and sure enough we have [17]. Why am I not surprised. NadVolum (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s not misuse of this Noticeboard to discuss whether a widely used source that we now discover has a penchant for pushing Russian disinformation and conspiracy theories is reliable.

As far as I know, this has no relation to NGO monitor. BilledMammal (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

A "penchant" denotes a widespread tendency, "pushing" denotes a conscious decision to spread something, again with the strong implication of repetition. Here we have a single report, which attributes the story to somebody else and states that it has been denied.

I agree that, if MEM regularly published articles sourced to Russian propaganda, or if they had published this story as fact and repeatedly asserted its truth we would have to look at whether it was reliable for news relating to the Russia/Ukraine conflict. But that is not what this is about, is it? --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I say a penchant because of Aris’ response when challenged. The issue appears systemic.

Further, while some is attributed, not all is, despite the entire story being disinformation. ::::But that is not what this is about, is it? This is about the reliability of the source, nothing else? BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Bah, one not even much of an incident, and it is systemic? Then every newsorg is unreliable by that standard. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s systemic because MEMO told the NYT "we don’t make any attempt to verify stories before publishing them". BilledMammal (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I can’t find anything by Ben Aris on MEMO. I can’t find he has any position there either. His Twitter profile doesn’t mention MEMO, so I don’t know what his unwilling to verify things has to do with MEMO. It also isn’t a normal thing to use quote marks for things nobody ever said. nableezy - 10:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears MEMO doesn’t publicly list the author of their articles. And I was paraphrasing - or do you think I was doing so inaccurately? BilledMammal (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

What we can say for certain is that NYT is attributing the unsubstantiated claim to Ben Aris (whose name doesn't appear anywhere on MEMO's website). M.Bitton (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

He doesn’t even say he writes for MEMO and the sentence structure is he referenced the MEMO article, and from his twitter he does. But he writes for BNE Intellinews. Paraphrases don’t use quotes. If anything that would be a sign of unreliability and disinformation. I see no evidence whatsoever that he writes for MEMO, much less represents them and their editorial policies. nableezy - 13:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

My reading differs - and clearly so do others here. BilledMammal (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

What others? Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There is one immediately above my reply? BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Please provide any evidence that he writes for MEMO or has any position there. A listing of his articles at MuckRack shows nothing at all. He is also not listed anywhere on MEMO's list of editors and regular contributors. Please provide any evidence at all for the claim that MEMO said anything like what you say they said. nableezy - 13:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I see the invitation to provide any evidence at all for the claims made has been ignored, I’ll assume that means the claim itself has been dropped. nableezy - 17:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

At least they attributed the claims, unlike the New York Times (enjoy reading this discussion about the self-declared beacon of journalistic integrity). M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on where the linked thread discussed attribution? The only comments I can find when searching by term are my own. FortunateSons (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The linked thread is about a fabricated story by NYT (it goes without saying that attribution is way above those who sink that low). M.Bitton (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I am aware, I participated in that thread. However, the claims about the article in the NYT are both highly disputed and unrelated to the issue of attribution. As the New York Times generally enjoys a high reliability and the linked discussion did not come to a different conclusion, I am confused about the purpose of your comment. Could you elaborate? FortunateSons (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Simple, if the NYT can screw up, so can MEMO and the NYT screwup is rather more severe than anything MEMO is allegedly guilty of. All this is just trying to make a mountain of a very small molehill. Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable for the story about Zelensky's mother-in-law. In general, I think that we should be very careful with using a source financed by Qatar (one of the worst countries when it comes to the freedom of speech and a supported of various Islamist movements) and that has been described as a "lobby group." Alaexis_¿question? 22:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Generally reliable. It is obviously financed by Qatar, but so is every other self-proclaimed independent media state-financed, including the BBC, which has been publishing extremely misleading coverage of the war. All medias have biases, but that doesn't necessarily affect general reliability, unless it has been consistently false or misleading; which applies more to the New York Times than Middle East Monitor, as far as I have seen. Nothing justifies downgrading the reliability of this source so far. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss

It is laughable to compare the amount of control that the British government exerts on the BBC to the amount of Control that Qatari government exerts over Al Jazeerah. The UK is a democratic country committed to the freedom of speech and of the Press. Qatar is neither of these. Vegan416 (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416: With control or without alleged government control; that doesn't change the fact that editors can be biased and unreliable. Democracies have been implicated in serious human rights violations, claiming that they are immune to it, is egregiously of touch with reality. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is immune from committing human rights violations, and nobody claims to be immune to that. But still non-democratic states are much more likely to commit them (all else being equal) than democratic states. And in particular in this regard of the freedom of press I repeat that it is laughable to claim that there is no difference in the level of control the governments have on state-owned (or even private) media companies, between democratic and non-democratic states. And it is ridiculous to suggest that they should be assigned the same level of reliability. Vegan416 (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliability is not based on government type, but editorial controls and track record on content. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What's actually ridiculous is to suggest that the reliability of a source depends on factors external to the quality of its reporting, and that all western sources monopolize the truth. This western-centrism is the root of systematic bias on Wikipedia. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss @Iskandar323

The reliability of a source depends on many things, among them editorial controls and track record on content. And editorial controls are heavily influenced by the government type. It is much more likely that the editorial controls in a non-democratic state will be in the hand of the government. Especially is state controlled/financed media. So the default assumptions in each case are different. At the very least we can say that the onus of proof that the editorial controls are not in the hand of the government is much higher in the case of non-democratic state media. Vegan416 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you think this hasn't been discussed before in the context of AJ? No one is going to change the assessment of the reliability of AJ based on your personal opinions and suppositions about its editorial procedures. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I would ask people not to !vote here, this is not an RfC, and if it were it would be a bad one as it is not formulated in anything approaching a neutral way. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 Selfstudier (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Having a quick look, there are also issues on their coverage of the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion; they haven't corrected their articles from immediately after the explosion that blamed Israel without equivocation, and even months later they continued to repeat those claims such as in this article where they say Hundreds killed in Israeli attack on Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza. BilledMammal (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Your position appears to be if a source doesn’t repeat some dominant POV of western sources that means it is unreliable. But that isn’t what that means, and there remains a dispute about the responsibility for that explosion, and a source taking a differing view than say the NYTimes doesn’t make that source unreliable. nableezy - 06:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Presumably BilledMammal's position here is simply that Middle East Monitor is claiming as fact something that is either untrue or unproven.

Also, @BilledMammal, the source you've provided was not published "months later" after the attack.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right - I misread the date. Published a month and a half later. BilledMammal (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m saying a source that continues to unequivocally blame Israel despite most evidence suggesting PIJ is to blame is probably unreliable, and is definitely highly biased. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Some evidence advanced by allies of Israel suggests that, other evidence, such as the analysis by Forensic Analysis, suggests otherwise. You are saying that if one does not take the conclusion of Israel that it is unreliable. And last I checked, that is not what reliability means here. nableezy - 11:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Beyond that, your retelling of this source is itself unreliable, the only place it includes that line is the title of a cartoon in the caption. Sheesh. nableezy - 11:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

"You are saying that if one does not take the conclusion of Israel that it is unreliable." Obviously this is not what BilledMammal is saying.

However, regarding "your retelling of this source is itself unreliable, the only place it includes that line is the title of a cartoon in the caption", this is concerning actually. BilledMammal has seemingly misrepresented the source by claiming that "they say 'Hundreds killed in Israeli attack on Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza'", despite that fact that this "claim" only appears as the caption of a cartoon at the bottom of the article.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, we treat captions the same way as we treat the rest of the article - there is no WP:HEADLINES for captions. If I am wrong, please correct me. BilledMammal (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Really?

From WP:Headlines: "Headlines [...] may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles."

You don't think that applies to captions? Especially a caption on a cartoon...

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the concern is that headlines are often clickbait created by individuals other than the journalist or researcher, while captions aren't because if a reader is seeing the caption they have already been convinced to click.

However, if I'm wrong and that does apply to captions we should update WP:HEADLINES to explicitly include captions, as I suspect I'm not the only editor who believes that policy doesn't apply to them. BilledMammal (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I suspect most editors don't think about that at all. Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Given how many editors aren't even aware of WP:HEADLINES you are probably right, but I still think that if I am wrong and it does apply to captions we should clarify that policy. BilledMammal (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes that is indeed the conclusion BilledMammal is reaching. That if one does not favor the conclusions of Israel’s allies it is unreliable and or biased. nableezy - 12:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

And if I'm reading it right, that cartoons are part of the moderated journalistic content of a newspaper. NadVolum (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment there is also the argument of fringe to be contended with: they are alleged to be a “a news site which promotes a strongly pro-Brotherhood and pro-Hamas view of the region. Memo’s director, Daud Abdullah, is also a leader of the Brotherhood-linked British Muslim Initiative, set up and run by the Brotherhood activist Anas al-Tikriti and two senior figures in Hamas.”. Additionally: “The Community Security Trust, the main Jewish organization monitoring all forms of racism, highlighted on its website that Corbyn is also scheduled to appear soon at a conference of the conspiracy-theory peddling anti-Israel organization Middle East Monitor”. (sources from MBFC, but citations checked) FortunateSons (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  MBFC is not a reliable source. Selfstudier (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, which is why I directly checked the citations (visible because mine are longer than theirs) and linked them. Feel free to check them yourself. FortunateSons (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Pass. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Holding views you dislike is not and has never been a factor for a sources reliability. nableezy - 13:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not, my personal dislike is not a factor. However, WP:FRINGE and other policies exclude some extreme views that go beyond bias, something that being strongly pro-terrorist-org (according to many countries) and ‘peddling conspiracy theories' probably meets. FortunateSons (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  That’s the opinion of a lobby group. And many countries consider Israel to be a genocidal racist country, does that rule out all pro-Israel sources? Again, not holding views you dislike is not a criteria for reliability. Full stop. nableezy - 13:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  The Community Security Trust is primarily a charity, referring to it as a lobby group is at least misleading. Additionally, both of my sources are RS per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and the views that MEM is allegedly expressing are definitely unusual enough to be concerning. FortunateSons (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  CST just copped a whacking £54 million handout from Sunak to bolster the defense of UK Jews apparently under a tremendous siege by raging antisemites that make London unsafe for them. On the other hand UK-Med is setting up a hospital jerryrigged with pieces of local timber to cater to 100 Palestinians a day, while 500,000 need attention. Apparently it is less safe for a British Jew to live in London, than it is for a Palestinian to live in Rafah.

What you call unusual or fringe views happens to be those that articulate the views, news and facts of a two-sided conflict, as those are perceived by one half, the defeated or crushed party. NPOV demands extreme care to maintain balanced narratives, and drying up access to the few newspapers that take on the burden of expressing the generally silenced perspectives of one party only consolidates the WP:Systemic bias we have to cope with in this area.

There are many cogent reasons why we should retain our use, always careful, of less 'mainstream' sources. The most important is the systemic bias of our default newspaper RS, New York Times, the Washington Post, The Times of Israel, the Jerusalem Post, Ynet and even Haaretz (the Guardian gives more coverage but not much) is known to all, and was underlined by a remark made in the NYTs the other day. The Israeli sources we accept are all now extremely pro-war and partisan, and much of their reliable content exemplifies a battle to show whose coverage is more patriotic, something that in turn feeds into the copy and paste Western newspapers. Chipping away, as has been done recently at the putative unreliableness or 'fringeness', even of the handful of newspapers that give voice to a Palestinian/Arab perspective, is nothing more than indicative of a tendency to spin reportage according to the dominant perspective of one of the contendents.

A study by the University of Arizona’s Maha Nassar found that of the opinion articles about Palestinians published in The New York Times and The Washington Post between 2000 and 2009, Palestinians themselves wrote roughly 1 percent. Peter Beinart, The Great Rupture in American Jewish Life,' The New York Times 22 March 2024

I.e., NYTs practice (and they are the most 'liberal' of the venues cited) is to delegate 99% of opinion articles on Palestinians to non-Palestinians (Americans, American Jews, or Israeli Jews normally). Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

First, the opinion is of Haaretz, not the "lobby group".

Second, we aren't here to right great wrongs; we don't use unreliable sources because no reliable sources contain the perspectives we believe should be included.

Third, your comment about the percentage of opinion articles seems irrelevant. How many opinion articles in the NYT about Russia are by Russians? How about Turkey? China? Israel? I suspect Palestine isn't a significant outlier among non-anglophone states of global interest.

Finally, regardless of reliability, I think it is clear that this is a biased source that should only be used with attribution, particularly now that FortunateSons has presented that Times article. BilledMammal (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it was telegraph and Haaretz, not Times :) FortunateSons (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The opinion I referred to is conspiracy theories, the holding views you dislike is referring to the Telegraph article. Holding views that agree with the Brotherhood or Hamas for that matter has nothing to do with reliability. You may want this to be a Zionist project where only sources that toe a certain line are allowed, but it is not and it has nothing to do with reliability. Not liking the views of a source is not and has never been a factor for a sources reliability. There is nothing disqualifying about holding views that promote a supposed pro-Brotherhood or pro-Hamas view of the region. Would holding that the Palestinian refugees have a right of return be disqualifying? Because that’s a pro-Hamas viewpoint of the region. You may keep trying to change the purpose of this board to be that of instituting a political test on sources, but I’ll keep calling it what it is. nableezy - 16:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Let’s WP:AssumeGoodFaith and beWP:CIVIL here. FortunateSons (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

When people attempt to rule out sources because of the views they hold they are misusing this board and attempting to institute a political test of their liking to sources. Again, holding pro-Hamas views has nothing to do with reliability, nor does holding pro-Israel views. You are the one making this about the views they hold. Is it a sign of unreliability to hold views associated with a state credibly accused of an ongoing genocide? Should all news sources that have been identified as pro-Israel be censored because of those views? Or do you only apply this test to the views you don’t like? nableezy - 16:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue isn’t the moral position of the source, its opinions are just clearly perceived as fringe by the sources cited by me. While there is some systemic bias, being in favour of terrorist groups is going to very likely put you in fringe territory regardless of which terror group it is: the same would have probably applied to a pro-Rote Armee Fraktion source had Wikipedia existed back then. If said source was also distributing conspiracy content enough to be noticed by MSM for it, even worse. FortunateSons (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Fringe doesn’t mean what you think it means. Holding pro brotherhood or pro Hamas positions isn’t fringe. nableezy - 17:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I think supporting terrorist groups and spreading conspiracy theories while not fact-checking or retracting stories is a factor when it comes to assessing the reliability of a source. It’s ok if you disagree FortunateSons (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I have ur permission to disagree as well? Thanks in advance. Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course, you did ask so nicely FortunateSons (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

None of that is true, please don’t make bogus assertions and expect people to pretend like they are true. nableezy - 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

They were referred to as all 3 by RS, and the story is still up FortunateSons (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

No, holding pro-Hamas viewpoints is not "supporting Hamas", and the Community Security Trust isn’t a reliable source, sorry. Again, holding views you don’t like is not something that matters here. Holding views that one right wing source calls pro-Hamas has nothing to do with reliability. It’s a funny thing that happens here, people forget we are supposed to include all significant views published by reliable sources but then try to define what is reliable based on the views sources hold so as to suppress those significant views they dislike. But bias, supposed or otherwise, has nothing to do with reliability. So despite the effort to create a list of beliefs one must not hold to be cited our policies remain diametrically opposed to such efforts. nableezy - 18:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Pardon me, publicising media while being pro-Hamas and having a mission statement which includes The use or misuse of information is central to the conflict in the Middle East. There has been a growing need for supporters of, in particular, the Palestinian cause, to master the art of information gathering, analysis and dissemination. This requires well organised, focused and targeted operations. Such initiatives are virtually non-existent in the West today. The Middle East Monitor (MEMO) was established to fill this gap. and As such, we regularly interface with politicians, editors, lobby groups and various other stakeholders to facilitate a better understanding and appreciation of the Palestine issue. is totally and meaningfully different from “supporting Hamas”.

The CSR wasn’t discussed as an RS (though I would be tempted to say they are generally analogous to the ADL). Additionally, we do exclude fringe views already, and we don’t need a pro-Hamas viewpoint for the sake of [[WP:FALSEBALANCE], there are decent pro-Palestinian sources even before the war and particularly now. FortunateSons (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely fringe about MEMO or its views, and therefore, nothing to exclude. Frankly, this joke is now officially a time sink that is wasting our resources without a snowball's chance in hell of achieving anything. M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The idea that a pro-Israel viewpoint should be included but we should be excluding sources for having similar views to Hamas, besides being a basic association fallacy, is one that is not in keeping with our core policies. If you want a website in which only views that you like are allowed you can go start your own, cus this one ain’t it. nableezy - 19:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

If it helps, I believe that we also should exclude any news source with the same reliability issues that’s pro Ku-Klux-Klan, pro Jewish Defense League, or probably pro Kach (political party). We don’t have to WP:FALSEBALANCE our way into pro-terrorism viewpoints. There are good and diligent sources that express pro-Palestine views and those ought to be included even where I disagree with them, Memo just isn’t one of them. The inclusion of RS and the exclusion of fringe and unreliable sources is an important part of Wikipedia. FortunateSons (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

But not pro state credibly accused of genocide I guess. And again, there is zero evidence of pro-terrorism, repeatedly making false statements isn’t the best look. nableezy - 20:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Pardon me, they are not pro-terrorism, just pro-terrorist-group. FortunateSons (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That makes the others (like NYT) pro-Genocide (when committed by a friend). M.Bitton (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That also is not true. What your one right wing source says it has pro Brotherhood and pro Hamas views of the region. Which could be in favor of anything from lifting the siege on Gaza to supporting the rights of Palestinian refugees to agreeing that Hamas has a legitimate right to resist foreign occupation and racist domination. None of that has anything to do with anything, and your attempt to redefine RS to exclude views you dislike is not one that has any policy backing. Nor even much support on this board. nableezy - 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, you're confusing bias with reliability. The anti-Palestinian bias of the New York Times doesn't prevent the NYT from being treated as RS. M.Bitton (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and there are significantly biased (not:fringe) sources that are also reliable, and this isn’t one of them. Nevertheless, I agree with your last comment that this discussion is unlikely to produce results, we will just have to wait for when this comes up again. FortunateSons (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You've been told this before, but I'll repeat it here: 1) Fringe doesn't mean what you think it means. 2) There is nothing remotely fringe about either MEMO or its views. M.Bitton (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Who receives what donations is always depended on a variety of circumstances and is unrelated to reliability in this context.

I too would prefer if there were more and better mainstream reliable sources on the pro-Palestinian side then there currently are, but using an unreliable and fringe source is not the solution to the western systemic bias, it’s the long term creation of reasonable and reliable sources on both sides, something that I (and probably you) don’t have the ability to do. As said above, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not the solution to a geopolitical and sociological issue. FortunateSons (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Look we have here this long thread and have proved what exactly? Not a whole lot, right? Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, both 'sides' provided good arguments for the inevitable RfC, otherwise, who knows. Maybe someone else will find something additional to contribute. FortunateSons (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Two editors fomenting a storm in a teacup does not a case for an RFC make. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, there are at least 5 participants, and considering the conduct and use of the source, I think it’s quite likely that it will be an RfC at some point. FortunateSons (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, perhaps when there is an actual live dispute over the use of the source on Wikipedia, that could be considered. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, something that I would consider probable FortunateSons (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh well if the great bastion of race-baiting that is the Telegraph has made some aspersions about people with foreign sounding names, I'm sure we're good as gold to take the info as writ. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Might want to take a look at the author of that piece. Selfstudier (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If a news outlet is routinely posting disproven information, incorrect information, or misinformation, it probably isn't a reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 17:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Really, never knew that. Are you saying that applies to MEM0? Another evidence free accusation? Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but that isn’t the case here at all so I don’t see the relevance to that general statement. nableezy - 18:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• No case has been established. I've never paid much attention to MEM and I don't think I have ever cited it. However, to eliminate a source requires much better evidence than I see here. Once arguments that really amount to "I don't like its politics" are removed, there is practically nothing left. Overall this is an unusually weak case. Zero^talk 01:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• I see MEMO as a non-reliable source that has no editorial standards and exists mainly to amplify a particular political position. I haven’t seen incidents of it actually promoting falsehoods apart from the one mentioned by the OP. But I believe the CST is a very reliable source (not a lobbying organisation, and far more reliable than the ADL, who are currently being discussed elsewhere on this page, so if they say MEMO promotes conspiracy theories I take that seriously. I don’t think, contrary to some comments here, that we should relax our standards in order to accommodate more that give voice to a Palestinian/Arab perspective: there are plenty of far stronger sources that do (Al-Jazeera, +972, Al-Monitor, The New Arab, the Independent, the Guardian…). I also object to the ad hominem attacks and assumptions of bad faith that have been a feature of this discussion. In a thread above, I am accused of not considering Norman Finkelstein reliable because I want to hide the truth; in this thread a second person agreeing that this source is unreliable is described as soon as coordinated chorus; and the accusation has been made that this is somehow instigated to defend NGO Monitor. (The fact that I’ve defended Al-Jazeera and 972 and opposed NGO Monitor as reliable sources doesn’t seem to stop such allegations.) Instead or these allegations against editors, defenders of this source would be better off giving examples of use by reliable sources or other actual reasons to trust it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's all very well, where though is the actual evidence of unreliability? It wasn't CST saying that they promote conspiracy theories, that was Haaretz (Anshel Pfeffer) saying that - "The Community Security Trust, the main Jewish organization monitoring all forms of racism, highlighted on its website that Corbyn is also scheduled to appear soon at a conference of the conspiracy-theory peddling anti-Israel organization Middle East Monitor, along with the anti-Semitic and Holocaust denier cartoonist Carlos Latuff." What are these conspiracy theories?

  So no, the burden remains with those accusing the source of unreliability to demonstrate that, not just allege it. Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, use by others. How about (Wikipedia Library links): Insight Turkey ([18]), Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses ([19]), International Crisis Group ([20], [21]), Journal of Palestine Studies ([22]), Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ([23]), Arab Studies Quarterly ([24]), and that's just when I got bored going through the JSTOR results. That enough evidence to go against your completely evidence-free opinion here? nableezy - 16:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Nableezy. That kind of evidence posted early on would have been more useful than (evidence-free) allegations that editors were here to hide the truth. Re CST, they did indeed say MEMO promotes conspiract theories, albeit a while ago:

  Middle East Monitor (MEMO) is a pro-Palestinian lobbying group which generally supports Islamist positions within Palestinian politics. We have had cause to write about MEMO on this blog before, because they commonly promote conspiracy theories about politicians in Western nations being beholden to Jewish or Zionist political manipulation and financial inducements, along with other classical antisemitic canards and tropes.[25]

  And:

  MEMO has featured repeatedly on the CST Blog for peddling conspiracy theories and myths about Jews, Zionists, money and power. This has included questioning the suitability of Matthew Gould for the post of UK Ambassador to Israel simply because he is Jewish. MEMO also continued to spread the untrue story that the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ film was a Zionist plot to stir up hatred of Muslims, several days after it had been widely established that the film was made by Egyptian Christians. One MEMO article, titled 'How money from pro-Israel donors controls Westminster', was even praised by American neo-Nazi David Duke. In 2009, when Channel 4's Dispatches aired a programme about pro-Israel lobby groups, MEMO illustrated their article about the programme with this image that implies Jewish or Israeli financial influence over the UK Parliament. A reverse Google images search suggests that this image originated on the thoroughly antisemitic Radio Islam website.[26]

  And: There is much else that is problematic in MEMO's report, not least the repeated Zionist conspiracy-mongering that is becoming their stock-in-trade. But this example illustrates a lesson they ought to heed: if you make things up as you go along, sooner or later people will stop believing what you say.[27] In the first cite above, CST actually goes further, saying that MEMO included a quote from Ariel Sharon that they say has been thoroughly debunked since it first appeared in 2001 in a press release from the pro-Hamas Islamic Association for Palestine. IAP's claimed source for the quote, the Israeli radio station Kol Yisrael, had never broadcast it, and their political correspondent confirmed that Sharon never said it. No other source has ever emerged to confirm IAP's claim.[28] Finally, in other pieces, CST accuse MEMO of multiple inaccuracies in relation to Raed Saleh.[29][30] BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  And is the CST material used by others? Those are CST blogposts you are citing there.Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Are these particular CST pieces cited by others? Well, we got to them because Ha'aretz cited them so yes. If you want a general discussion about the reliability of CST, probably better to open a new thread. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Blogposts are not RS, so no need. Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not quite right. See below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• I would argue that CST is generally reliable. In addition, it’s clear that the relevant citations confirm what the original RS source said. FortunateSons (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  They are blog posts. MEMO > blogposts. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is the blog of a reliable monitoring organisation not a self-published blog in the sense used by WP:SPS. It should have a similar status to e.g. SPLC Hatewatch or the Hope Not Hate blog, sources we've discussed before and ruled reliable. If you wanted to get pedantic, MEMO is essentially a blog if this is: MEMO is an organisation with a particular political perspective publishing its own content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Lots of RS orgs have blog post sections, they are just opinions, MEMO is a newsorg. Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Assessment of use by others

I've had a moment to look at reputation and use by others a little more systematically, by going through mentions in news articles via Google news and factcheck sites via Poynter Institute. Here's what I found:

• Favourable:
  • DW has used it as a reliable source on the Palestinian Authority in 2016, calling it a "not-for-profit policy research institute".[31] (They also used it a "pro-Muslim Brotherhood website" the same year.[32])
  • The Misbar fact check website uses MEMO as a reliable source in factchecking a fake claim on social media.[33]
  • Snopes lists MEMO among "numerous international news outlets" reporting on the Saudi Miss World entry[34]
  • AFP occasionally uses it as a reliable source in factchecks.[35]
• Unfavourable:

  • AFP reports MEMO passed off an anti-Saudi satirical article as true. The story may have been intended as light-hearted fiction, but other websites have since reproduced it without clarifying that it was made up for fun. The Middle East Monitor and Zambian entertainment site Tumfweko relayed the story, as did India’s Times Now before issuing a correction.[36]

  • Annenburg's Factheck.org finds it misrepresenting a video of IDF violence (In addition to the video, the post includes a link to an Oct. 30 article in the Middle East Monitor, a website that says it supports the “Palestinian cause.” That article includes a quote that reads: “Israeli commanders made ‘difficult decisions’ including ‘shelling houses on their occupants in order to eliminate the terrorists along with the hostages.'” The quote is attributed to a security coordinator at Kibbutz Be’eri, one of the settlements attacked by Hamas on Oct. 7. But the aerial footage shown in the post comes from a longer compilation video shared by the IDF on Oct. 9 on X [which] shows aerial bombings at several sites[37]
  • Misbar finds it (along with Al-Mayadeen) falsely claiming on its social media channels that a settler stabbed a Palestinian woman, based on video that was in fact an intra-Palestinian domestic incident (as debunked by an Al Araby TV reporter).[38] The same website reports MEMO reporting fake news about Nike quitting Israel.[39]
• Ambiguous:
  • Logically Facts lists it among "news sites" (the others are Al Jazeera, The New Arab, and Jordan News) using false reporting from Channel 14, Israel's version of Fox News.[40]
  • Jerusalem Post reports them making unconfirmed claims about Israeli organ harvesting[41]
  • Highly reliable fact checking site Lead Stories mention their report being used in social media misinformation about October 7 but not clear if their report is accurate or not[42]
  • It features in a failed fact check from Polygraph about Libya, but it's the person they're quoting that is failed rather than MEMO.[43]
  • An AFP factcheck of a false claim made in a viral video mentions a Middle East Eye and Middle East Monitor videos as the original sources of the video; the MEMO version was not falsely dated (as in the viral version), but was misleadingly captioned.[44] Elsewhere, AFP describes MEMO as "a UK-based not-for-profit press monitoring organisation".[45]
  • Politifact describes MEMO as "a publication that calls itself a supporter of the Palestinian cause"[46] Elsewhere, fact checking a viral video, it lists MEMO among "Some pro-Palestinian news outlets [that] shared the video that’s been circulating social media, but they provided no additional information to substantiate the claim."[47]
  • CAMERA UK, a partisan pro-Israel media monitoring organisation, complains about a Daily Express (low quality right-wing UK tabloid, which we consider generally unreliably ) report that it says reproduces Palestinian Authority propaganda, and adds "Moreover, it’s quite telling that the only other site we could find that covered this “horrific” report was the pro-Hamas site Middle East Monitor (MEMO). Interestingly, though, MEMO’s headline (“Report: Israel imposes $28,000 fines on Palestinian children”, June 4) is significantly more restrained than the one chosen by Daily Express editors."[48]
  • HonestReporting, another partisan pro-Israel media monitoring organisation, complains about an International Business Times report (we consider IBT unreliable): "The journalist gets his information from a range of sources and links to sites including: Terrorist organization Hezbollah’s Al-Manar website; Iranian government propaganda outfit Press TV; Anti-Israel hate site Middle East Monitor (MEMO)."[49]
  • CheckYourFact calls it "a pro-Palestinian lobbying group".[50]
  • Several fact checks have found its videos being repurposed with fake information in viral social media posts, but this doesn't say anything about its own reliability.

Conclusion: not enough evidence of unreliability to call it "generally unreliable" but definitely enough to not call it "generally reliable" so probably yellow flag rather than red or green. Some RSs consider it a news organisation, but many consider it a lobbying group. I'd say: use with extreme caution, always attribute, try to triangulate if only partisan sources are available, be cautious if it's the only source, replace with better sources if any are available. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

If that's a long way around of saying attribute anything controversial, I would go along with that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Is this over at last? That was a fairly big mountain of molehill. I must admit in the past of producing long documents adhering to all the standards when I wanted people to just give up and let something pass without comment, but that doesn't seem to work on Wikipedia thankfully. NadVolum (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Israeli based news sources

Hey everyone. I thought of dropping in here and asking if there are consensus for the use of the following Israeli-based news sources particularly in the coverage of the ongoing Gaza War. I've seen Al-Jazeera being used for coverage of Israel-Palestine topics, alongside other Israeli news sources. Al-Jazeera has been considered reliable, but I'm unsure what about considering Israeli-based sources?

• Times of Israel
• ynetnews.com
• The Jerusalem Post

--ZKang123 (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, all of them are used, and generally considered biased in regards to the conflict but reliable; they are cited by others.Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources does not list anyone but Haaretz. FortunateSons (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post is highly misleading, given its record in war propganda; example when it mocked a dead Palestinian child claiming they were a doll. They did indeed apologize and retract the statement, but that just shows you how they operate. As for the Times of Israel, they are misleading in some aspects, including how for example they take great care to cast doubt into Gaza's casualty figures, even falsely claiming they were partly due to misfired Palestinian rockets; while at the same time, mentioning nothing of the friendly fire accidents when talking about Israeli casualties; they literally seem to do this mental gymnastics on every article they publish on the war. As for Ynet, I never read it so I wouldn't know. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

There is credible reporting that Gaza’s casualties are partially caused by misfired rockets, both historically and currently by RS, so at least some deaths due to misfires are pretty clear, something significantly less certain regarding friendly fire (whose highest credible count during Oct 7 is less than 20 and which received coverage , plus 3 hostages later, as well as about 20 soldiers). FortunateSons (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with what I wrote. In every article about the war they list the casualties on both sides in the last paragraph. In it they cast doubt on the 30k figures on Palestinian side, including with them the claim of casualties due to misfired Palestinian rockets, as if that’s a significant portion; ‘’’while at the same time’’’, mentioning nothing of friendly fire on the 1200 Israeli figure. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Because there is no broad support (at least by western RS) for any significant amount of casualties by friendly fire on October 7., with some sporadic casualties (our own article lists less than 15 people). FortunateSons (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies and retractions mean that their editorial process is working and are generally a good sign. Are there any other examples of JPost's supposed lack of reliability? Alaexis_¿question? 21:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• In my experience:

• ToI and Ynet are marginally biased, but typically reliable and about as neutral as an Israel-based source can be.

• JPost is considerably biased toward the Israeli right, and treads on the line between "reliable" and "use with attribution." Considering the availability of the two above, I personally lean toward the latter end of that scale.

Edited my comment as I'd confused Ynet with i24, which is outrage propaganda. The Kip 04:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have found ToI to be reliable in general (except for some reason when the article is bylined ToI staff rather than a named reporter). JP is awful, pretty much a government mouthpiece since the war started and ynet is OK most of the time but not always.Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how they are “awful” in the context of unreliability? FortunateSons (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

They seem to mark the worst stuff as opinion so I'd say they're reasonably reliable as far as biased sources go. I agree with Selfstudier about TOI. NadVolum (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Times of Israel is rather reliable and independent, and frequently criticizes the Israeli government. It obviously takes an Israeli POV, but still reliable. Jerusalem Post, in what little I've seen, is more sensationalist and populist in tone. Even regardless of bias, it's a poor quality source in general. I don't know Ynetnews well enough to comment. Jeppiz (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Ynet is fine, ToI is fine, JPost is generally closer to garbage than fine. Better than things like i24 and obviously Arutz Sheva, but closer to that end of the spectrum than Haaretz, Yedioth Ahronoth, and ToI. nableezy - 22:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Like every source in the world, The JPost also has a certain leaning (and I hope we all agree that there is no objective media outlet). However, it is definitely not a "government mouthpiece", "awful", or "closer to garbage". One can see from the articles linked here, here, here, here, here and here, that they also write critically of the Israeli government. (I wonder if Al-Jazeera, which was mentioned here as a reliable source, has even one small article that does not blatantly side with the Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) .Eladkarmel (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As per Eladkarmel and FortunateSons. Both JP and Ynet have a long-standing history of journalistic integrity and professionalism. Naturally, these are Israeli outlets, so there is some leaning towards the Israeli POV, just like Al Jazeera, funded by Qatar, is not entirely neutral. Still, it is perplexing how some editors casually dismiss these journals as "garbage", "awful", "government mouthpiece", "war propaganda" etc. without any substantiated basis. These journals regularly publish articles that go against the government or that reflect major divisions within Israeli politics or public opinion. GidiD (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• It is important to reiterate that having a bias does NOT equate to being unreliable. That said, in controversial situations such as the current Israeli/Palestinian conflict bias can influence what gets covered and how it is covered. It is therefore important to give in-text attribution when reporting which outlet is saying what, and not present information from either side as undisputed fact. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think I presented in-text attribution from Jpost. Eladkarmel (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Patriotic journalism is completely normal in every country, and is not a reason to discredit the local news outlets. Israel has a free press; its major newspapers, like YNet, are as reliable concerning Israel as the Washington Post is concerning U.S. news topics. The news organizations mentioned above have a reputation for having real fact-checking at Western standards and easily meet the reliability standards of Wikipedia. Marokwitz (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, except the Jerusalem Post does a little more than that. It is a purveyor of outright lies and misinformation and actively indulges in Pallywood conspiracy theory. It is a pathetic rag and devoid of journalistic principles. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Any chance you'll stop using this harsh language? It's really not helpful nor does it convince anyone. Eladkarmel (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm glad that the only thing you take issue is with the tone. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Actually yes, for me it is the basis of any discussion. There is a saying in Judaism that says:Proper behavior precedes the Torah. Eladkarmel (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for this @Eladkarmel, I'd not heard that saying before; I appreciate that.

  Regarding your concerns about tone however, while I agree that @Iskandar323 should be more professional here, I do find that WP:Civility is often overly prioritized on Wikipedia, while polite misconduct, which is much more pernicious, often goes undealt with and unaddressed.

  - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Western standards" eh? Seems rather Eurocentric, don't you think?

  I'll remind you that WP:Competence is required, especially as this discussion relates to a contentious topic area

  - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ironic timing too, since a lot of "Western standard" sources have been coming under extreme scrutiny of late for their journalistic incompetence and extreme cultural/political bias. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  If you think the press in China, Russia, North Korea, or any Arab or Muslim country surpasses that in Israel, the US, and Western Europe, then... I don't know what to say. Feel free to call me Eurocentric. Marokwitz (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting stereotypical pick of Western bogeymen. Africa, Latin America and the rest of Asia also exist, fyi. Your words not mine on your Eurocentricity. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  This user should probably not be editing in this topic area. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• It seems a little odd to me to discuss the reliability of Israeli-based newspapers in general, but of the three listed there seems to be consensus that ToI and YNet are broadly reliable but less re JP. I agree it tends towards a more sensationalist tone and more severe bias, so it's definitely weaker (but probably stronger than the more tabloidy i24). There is one specific allegation of actual unreliability here: its promotion of a fake "Pallywood" allegation, as documented by the excellent BBC Verify team (These claims were amplified in an article by the Jerusalem Post, an influential Israeli newspaper, which showed an image of Muhammad in rigor mortis after his death and said it proved he was a doll. After a backlash, the paper removed the article from its website, saying on X (formerly Twitter) that the report "was based on faulty sourcing". That's definitely a count against it, mitigated by the removal, but probably not enough to consider it generally unreliable. Are there other specific examples? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Just a reminder that bias doesn't necessarily make a source unreliable, attribution is always an option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I've been busy and unable to check on this discussion. So from what I can tell from consensus, Times of Israel and Ynet are reliable, but JPost might not be? Btw, I'm asking because I just notice there have been consensus for other newspapers (Al-Jazeera) reporting on Israel/Palestine. I've also read many articles from the Israeli side which doesn't seem reported by other outlets (especially on the spike of antisemitism around the world). So I'm unsure whether they could also be cited as well.--11:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of WION

Following both previous discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315#Is WION a reliable source? and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#WION News, should WION News can be considered as unreliable? 103.230.81.135 (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment I would kindly ask you to add the voting options used for RfC on this noticeboard. FortunateSons (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the reliability of WION, also known as World is One News?

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

Unlike Daily Mail, which is considered unreliable and depreciated. WION is an Indian news channel owned by Essel Group, which also owns Zee Media. The site contains extensive India-related articles, celebrity facts, and others does not itself as a generally reliable source.

wionews.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 --85.94.24.29 (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this article about a Communist millionaire from The Free Press reliable?

The Free Press was founded by Bari Weiss a couple years ago. It's been discussed here a few times, but I didn't see a clear consensus that applies today. It started as essentially an upgraded blog for Bari Weiss, but now has a number of other staff members and some kind of editorial process. It has some fairly strong political perspectives, especially on gender issues.

I'm thinking of creating an article for James 'Fergie' Chambers, a Cox family heir and far-left activist, and came across this article: He’s Got $250 Million to Spend on Communist Revolution frpm The Free Press. It's an in-depth profile with participation from Chambers himself, neighbors, government officials, etc - well beyond a blog post. The author is Suzy Weiss, who appears to be Bari's sister. There are a few other articles on Chambers (1, 2, 3, 4), but, if reliable, this would be the best of them and a major source for our article. Do you think it should be considered reliable? —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Weiss' ventures have been uniformly propagandistic for years. Furthermore, if this is what you've got for sources to establish notability it's likely insufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not 100% on creating the page yet - I wanted to ask about the Free Press article before doing anything - but it seems like he's probably notable to me. The Berkshire Eagle is a reliable regional newspaper, LA Magazine is reliable of long standing, and Axios is generally considered reliable as well. Mother Jones is probably the weakest as it's also (like the FP) opinionated/biased, but that's four reliable sources with articles squarely focused on Chambers personally, three of them in-depth. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Bari Weiss cast her Free Press explicitly in contrast with sources that our community regards as reliable like NPR and the New York Times: In Bari Weiss's words: If you’re someone that used to read the New York Times and listen to NPR in the morning, and now you’re thinking to yourself, 'I don’t know if I can trust what I hear or read there anymore,' where do you go? (as quoted by Los Angeles Magazine). If Free Press is designed to operate in contrast to that of reliable sources, I wouldn't consider it reliable. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources are allowed to be biased. What Weiss means here is that her magazine will take a different editorial stance than the NYT or NPR. That does not inherently render the source unreliable in and of itself. Zylostr (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 397 for the old discussion. Some of the arguments are loosely based on @Red-tailed hawk, so consider this attribution.

That’s an interesting question, in no particular order:

On the basics: they appear to be generally politically moderate enough and not express fringe views that would make covering wealthy people or communism through them untenable on that basis, being somewhere between (neo)liberal and conservative in their coverage. While some of who they platform is definitely questionable, I see no issue regarding reliability on that front.

On the very basics: staff, professional journalists, growth, no major mishaps, taken at least somewhat seriously by other sources, not SPS, so no objections here. It also appears that they are hiring additional staff, so it’s unlikely that any of those are about to change.

The primary issue (the age of the source) has been addressed enough to categorise them, which would be generally reliable but biased, so attributable where appropriate.

Therefore, I would recommend a cautious use due to the relatively new age, otherwise reliable for BLP. FortunateSons (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. A quick search finds no WP:USEBYOTHERS and no secondary coverage; there's no hint that this source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. What they say about themselves isn't sufficient to make them a RS, and what limited coverage exists (above) is not what I would call positive, so from our perspective they're still a WP:SPS. I would revert BLP-sensitive additions made using this source on sight as poorly-sourced under WP:3RRBLP. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think with over 20 employees and contractors, we are beyond SPS, right? FortunateSons (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

No, not really. Number of employees has no significance whatsoever - group blogs are quite common and are still WP:SPSes. All that it means is that the person running the blog has money, or people who agree with them who join on. WP:RS stems from the source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Anyone can set up a website, claim to be reliable, and write anything they please on it, but reliability comes only from what other people say about it, not what they say about themselves or how they present themselves. If there's no coverage indicating that a source is reliable, then it is not reliable, at least not at the standard WP:BLP would require; and is probably usable only as a self-published source. --Aquillion (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m not saying it has to be reliable just because it’s not SPS, but there is a difference between a media company with editors, experienced journalists, etc. and a group blog. FortunateSons (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on the sources given, I can't imagine any article you write would be appropriate, and not an attack page. I think you'd want some less hostile, biographical sources to make a page on someone. Parabolist (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's possible to create a neutral article by pulling pieces of information from non-neutral sources, so long as they are independent and (especially) reliable. If you come across sources you think would be an improvement, for sure let me know, though - every bit helps. Thank you to everyone for your comments thus far! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see anything that would prevent this specific piece from being used, as it seems considerably higher-quality than most of what Weiss/TFP has previously put out - that said, don't take this as an endorsement of TFP overall, I would shy away from their use otherwise. The Kip 04:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• There is some WP:USEBYOTHERS: [51], [52], [53], [54] which is not bad considering that they were founded quite recently. Unless there are specific issues with their reporting about James Chambers, it can be used as a source. Alaexis_¿question? 09:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  The Hindu Post link is highlighted for me as a generally unreliable source, but I can't find it at WP:RSP. If it's indeed unreliable, please ignore it, there are still three other sources which mentioned the Free Press' report. Alaexis_¿question? 09:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is also this FortunateSons (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  As WP:USEBYOTHERS says, How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation (emphasis added). One random website using another random website doesn't make the latter more reliable. In the modern media environment, plenty of mediocre-to-actively-awful sources point to other mediocre-to-actively-awful sources. In order to establish that Weiss' Free Press truly has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, we would need sources that are themselves top-tier, like national papers of record, and they would need to use Free Press items in a substantial way (e.g., not merely reporting that Free Press was one of several websites to make a particular claim). At the moment, it's a long way from meeting that standard. XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  What makes you think that the sources I've provided are not " accepted and high-quality reliable sources"? Alaexis_¿question? 18:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• For those interested, there is a draft page available to edit here: Draft:Fergie Chambers. It currently incorporates material from The Free Press, but the immediately prior version (available in the edit history) did not. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Per WP:NEWSORG "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." The Free Press, like many media sources, publishes a mixture of opinion/commentary and reporting. Of course, context matters (and, not everything published in reliable sources needs to be included, per WP:RSOPINION, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING). The particular article at the heart of this discussion is a piece of first-person news reporting by a reporter. It is certainly not the only article on Fergie Chambers, nor the only media outlet that has published on Chambers. Since it indeed touches on a living person, exceptional or contentious claims found only in the FP article might be omitted until better corroborated (and considered under WP:PROPORTION) but uncontroversial statements with little reason to doubt them should be fine. In a nutshell, the Free Press news articles may be usable on a case-by-case basis. It is a very new media company with a mixture of news and commentary, but I see established journalistic writers, a declared editorial board consisting of professionals from legacy media, and the issuance of corrections in pursuit of accuracy. Its newness precludes an abundance of in-depth secondary sources, and the controversial history or opinions of its founder may color editor's perception of the outlet as a whole, but I see it as somewhat similar to Semafor or The Messenger - a new and growing media company that practices journalistic standards, regardless of editorial slant (remember: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective).

I see a good deal of misinformation in this and previous discussions of the Free Press (e.g. here and here): people calling the current version of the Free Press a self-published source are largely incorrect. From Wikipedia's own explanatory page, Identifying and using self-published works: Identifying a self-published source is usually straightforward. You need two pieces of information: Who is the author or creator of the work? Who is the publisher of the work? If the answers to these questions are the same, then the work is self-published. If they are different, then the work is not self-published. Bari Weiss is the founder and owner of the Free Press, and an editor. She can reasonably be presumed to be the publisher. However, journalists Emily Yoffe and Peter Savodnik are credited as senior editors.[55][56] The managing editor is credited as Margi Conklin. Oliver Wiseman is also credited as an editor. And, as others have mentioned, the Free Press has a staff of around 20, with contributors including Eli Lake[57], Joe Nocera[58], Kat Rosenfield[59], Douglas Murray[60], Matti Friedman[61], Martin Gurri[62], Walter Kirn[63], and others. Not everyone may agree with a certain columnist or writer's view, but the Free Press has multiple editors with experience in traditional journalism, and several established staff writers. So long as the author, editor, and publisher are not the same person, no works by these or any writer, save Bari Weiss herself, fit the definition of self-published source. Another indicator of reliability is the issuance of corrections, which the Free Press does (e.g. [64][65][66][67]). It is no longer simply Bari Weiss's newsletter. However, since the outlet is so new, it is possible that earlier articles, especially those originally published on the Common Sense Substack, may have had less editorial oversight and be considered less reliable. Attribute when appropriate.

WP:USEBYOTHERS is demonstrated in some cases, although the outlet's age may preclude more. I don't subscribe to the FP nor follow it closely, but casual Googling for a previous RSN discussion finds uncritical usage by several established, credible outlets such as New York Daily News[68], National Review[69] and The Forward[70] but again, the more contentious a given statement is, the higher the bar for scrutiny and due-weight (which is different from reliability).

A lot of us have given our own personal opinions of the website. I'm more swayed by the views of journalists and experts. Columnist Jonathan Chait, recently writing for New York magazine, gives both praise and criticism to the outlet (his main gripe seems to be that the FP does not focus enough or as harshly on Donald Trump as he'd prefer, and that its selection and tone of articles tends to favor Weiss's worldview). He writes: "The journalistic premise of The Free Press is that, because the mainstream media has abandoned traditional norms of objectivity on subjects related to identity issues, a coverage gap is available to be filled. Also, progressive activists employ pressure, both externally (through social media) and internally (through the tactics of left-wing staff) to force coverage to comply with the progressive line. This critique is not without truth. .... Media organs have corrected some of these lurches to the left but not entirely. That bias has allowed The Free Press to break a number of stories that were either missed, ignored, or misreported by the mainstream media. It debunked widely circulated claims that a Canadian Catholic school for Indigenous children contained mass graves, a conclusion the mainstream media eventually confirmed. It broke stories about a Brooklyn public school using a Qatari-funded map of the Middle East that eliminated Israel, political drama at the Audubon Society over demands to change its name to de-honor its slave-owning founder, and Harvard biologist Carole Hooven's account of her cancellation for stating that sex (but not gender) is binary."

In summary, I think this particular article may be used with caution. It is not self-published. For the purpose of the article at hand, personal views of Bari Weiss matter about as much as the views of A. G. Sulzberger to the New York Times. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Models.com rankings

This subject was raised back in 2021, but not actually resolved in any substantive way. [71]. We currently cite the Models.com website in 777 different articles, [72] and in a great many of them seem to be using the website to cite various descriptions, rankings and/or ratings for models as "Icons", "New Supers", "Top 20 Sexiest Models", "Top Newcomer", "Money Girl" and no doubt more - I'm not going to check all 777 articles. To my mind, such indiscriminate throwing around of labels would make them of questionable merit in any source, but from looking at the website itself it appears to be even more problematic. As their About page [73] makes clear this website sells 'memberships' which enable a member to "Manage Your Brand" etc. See also the Help page ("Use Models.com like a Pro to discover talent, promote yourself or manage the talent you represent... [74]), and FAQ ("How to upload campaigns, editorials and more" etc, etc [75]). This is clearly in no way an independent source, able to independently assess or rank models. It is selling a service, to facilitate those who promote them. Accordingly, as I see it, the use to which this website is being put is entirely improper. It is promoting its 'members', and we are citing this promotion as if it is some sort of objective commentary. We clearly need to stop citing the website this way, and I could even see an argument for blacklisting it, given how frequently it has been misused. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The thing is that most models there who are labeled as "Icons", "New Supers" etc, are literally that. For example Vittoria Ceretti who has appeared on the big 4 covers of Vogue, has been part of numerous solo advertisment campaigns and has achieved fame makes her a supermodel, same goes for Bella Hadid or Gigi Hadid. Or Gisele Bündchen who has been labelled as an "übermodel" she really is an "Icon or a Legend" in terms of modelling. There are requirments in which they list their models, "Top 50" means top 50 models who have had a good season and I've seen most of them and it fits them. Also all models on the "New Supers" category are Supermodels. I get where you're coming from but as long as the ranking is correct, in which the website reviews it while making the selections, I don't really see a problem. Maria1718182 (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Your personal opinion as to who does or doesn't deserve to be labelled as an 'Icon', a 'legend' etc is of no relevance to Wikipedia policy regarding which sources are acceptable to cite for any particular content. I suggest you take the time to familiarise yourself with said policy, as I suggested on your talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It isn't my personal opinion rather the opinion of the industry and certain sources such as Vogue being one of them. Go and see how the models.com selections are made about these kind of labels, if they're selected as 'New Supers', their work has been taken into account. I simply said I have regarded these certain models and I agree with what models.com listed them to be. Maria1718182 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Also if it was a promoting site, many models would have labelled themselves as supermodels especially newcomers. So selections are made based on certain criteria which is on models.com. You simply have to click on it. Maria1718182 (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If Vogue describes someone as a supermodel, we can consider citing them for it. As for the rest of your comments, once more, they have no bearing on Wikipedia policy. We don't cite sources because we agree with them. We don't cite them because they claim to have 'criteria'. We cite them when if, and only if, they meet our criteria. And as far as this website goes, it seems self-evident that they have a direct commercial interest in promoting, through the application of such 'selections', those that pay for membership. This invalidates them as a source of independent assessment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I was summoned here by another user for obvious reasons so let's see what basic googling brought me to:

A.Harper's Bazaar - "Gigi Hadid and Kendall Jenner make Models Top 50 debut". These two women need no introduction. They said and I quote Gigi Hadid and Kendall Jenner have both made Models.com's prestigious Top 50 list for the first time. They join the likes of Edie Campbell, Lindsey Wixson and Georgia May Jagger in what is widely considered to be the definitive guide to the top models of the moment. [...] the Top 50 list tracks the girls who are currently making waves within the fashion and beauty industries, thanks to their number of contracts, campaigns and editorial bookings.

B. Multiple editions of Vogue (yes, Vogue) have cited models.com as a reliable source or have used their lists as a metric of notability. Vogue Australia in October of last year: South Sudanese-Australian model Abény Nhial was nominated last year as Models.com’s 2022 breakout star of the year, and since, has gone on to hold a spot on the website's top 50 models list[.] and back in 2014 when Vogue Italia did a cover of 50 actual supermodels, the likes of Linda Evangelista and Naomi Campbell, [they saidhttps://www.vogue.com.au/fashion/news/50-models-cover-vogue-italias-50th-anniversary-issue/news-story/01c2e7202f1a12cc7235eae9722af508] The cast of models reads like a Models.com top 50 list. Teen Vogue published an article on a Models.com exposé. Teen Vogue published an article when Gigi Hadid was chosen by Models.com as Model of the Year The list is a great indicator of who's who in the industry. Vogue France deemed it notable when male model Kit Butler was chosen as Models.com's Model of the Year in the men's category. Even all the way back in 2011, Vogue sought it fit to mention that runway legend Natasha Poly was (ranked number two in the world on Models.com, for the record).

C. The New York Times, literally in the first sentence of this article, says Lara Stone, the gaptoothed Dutch-English model often compared to Brigitte Bardot who was at the top of models.com’s Top 50 models in the world list from 2010 to 2012, has done many things in fashion. Apparently this list is so notable that it precedes Vogue covers and being a Calvin Klein exclusive, in a New York Times editorial.

D. Interview on Ondria Hardin here: Things haven’t slowed down since: ranked as one of Models.com’s “Top 50 Models,” the North Carolina native was a fixture at the SS 2017 shows, walking for the likes of Miu Miu, Chanel, Balmain, Dries Van Noten, Versace, and Michael Kors.

E. GQ Australia used Models.com's lists, plural, as in other lists in addition to the Top 50 one, as a reference of notability 5 times in this article a month ago. Also called them prestigious and coveted.

These are only a few examples. So what exactly is the real argument against this website? It is so clear what the subversion here is. They have a masthead if anyone bothers to look at the bottom, so clearly there is a staff of people doing all of this as a job and it isn't some random blog ran from a loft in Greenpoint. Who gives a damn if they have a Pro section. Nowadays Vogue only let's people read one article before making people sign up or log in, and won't let people people see the runway slideshows (which, get this, we on Wikipedia need to use to verify work). To say that they're "not independent" because they expect to earn money as a business, no different than any other website (that includes the websites of magazines that have actual corporations behind them) is utterly nonsensical. Trillfendi (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The real question is whether Models.com is widely used in the model industry or not. This far, the only argument seems to be that AndTheGrump does not like the site and Maria1718182 likes it. Neither's feelings are very relevant. If it is an obscure site, we should not use it. If it is a widely used site in the modelling industry, it should be used for that industry, with proper attribution. Jeppiz (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

My objections have nothing to do with 'not liking the site'. I am asking whether it can appropriately be used for promotional content regarding clients who may pay for 'memberships' which give access to editorial control. As a general principle, (see e.g. WP:SPONSORED) we consider Sources that do not clearly distinguish staff-written articles from sponsored content to be questionable. If this was just a one-off usage, I'd simply have removed it, but since the website has been cited so often, and since their doesn't seem to have been any prior discussion that resolved the issue, I am asking for broader input, based on the evidence available which suggests that its use as a source for rankings and other potentially-promotional content is compromised by a commercial relationship with its clientele. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I checked the website once again about the membership.

"Individual model or creative profiles on Models.com are by invitation only based on career accomplishments, longevity and industry influence."

This is what is says. It means that these models are selected based on certain criteria, you have to give credit for your work and models.com only allows certain people on their website as models. Maria1718182 (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The whole work of models (new gen) is basically there which helps to cite how many shows they've walked in, editorials, advertisments and you have to give credit for your work as cited by the website, you can't just claim it. I think it is important for wikipedia since they seem to keep track of it, and in my opinion it's a reliable site for numbers such as runway shows etc. As for the rankings AndytheGrump may be right, because there are models who haven't contributed to the industry that long and are considered as "Supermodels", which makes you think if the site is reliable in terms of the rankings. Maria1718182 (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• From the about is page it's clear their content comes from the source, membership allows you to add details. At best that makes it self-published, and so should be handled as such. Specifically it should be fine as a source of information about themselves so long as The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. So it can be used for details of what shows they've been in etc, but not for exceptional claims or matters of opinion. If you want to use 'supetmodel' you're going to have to find a different source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• For those who don't know the history, models.com started out as a spinoff site of the 90s era New York Web. From the beginning NYW had a sort of breathless "what's hot right now" approach, informed by NYC nightlife culture, that carried over into models.com. Some of the early archives of models.com rankings are kind of creepy to read! But there's no doubt, at all, that the site is now used widely within the industry, so much that companies providing stats and data about covers and runway appearances and so forth know they are monitored by their competitors and generally provide accurate information (except for height, haha). So I don't see a problem using it as a reference for things like Vogue covers or runway shows.
  That said, we shouldn't substitute models.com's rankings for our own notability guidelines, and we should avoid simply reproducing models.com's in-universe rankings without attributions, supporting citations, and context (e.g. not just "models.com Hot Newcomer" but "When asked for a list of eight new models she particularly liked, stylist Gabriella Karefa-Johnson selected Divine Mugisha as one of the eight for F/W 2024"). Put another way, a person isn't notable on Wikipedia because models.com ranks them highly, they are notable because of the underlying things that meet our guidelines. (Though I'm not sure we've ever come to a consensus that fashion shows or magazine covers count as the "other productions" specified in WP:ENT, actually.) As long as we're using it to support the actual stats/references we should be citing rather than just gesturing to the models.com ranking or editorial commentary as a substitute for that sourcing work, we don't have to worry as much about whether "Hot 50" means the most covers or highest EMV or most Instagram followers or Stephan's faves or which agency paid the fee or whatever. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it time to re-evaluate the ADL?

The ADL is a bit of an odd entry as a GREL source at RSP, and I'm wondering if this is simply a function of there never being a fully fledged RFC on the matter, and merely a handful of relatively informal discussions. The ADL is functionally a pro-Israeli advocacy group that has also dabbled in civil rights more generally. At the moment, the organization is deemed largely GREL with a few caveats: "There is consensus that ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S. There is no consensus that ADL must be attributed in all cases, but there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed. Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution. Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all." I find the last two of these points particularly odd. Does this mean that there are opinion pieces that would be considered reliable and not require attribution? And how and why? Don't we ordinarily attribute almost all opinion, unless issued from an utterly impeachable source? And only some editors consider the ADL a biased source for the Israel/Palestine conflict? Again, surely it is a dead ringer for bias in that area? This question has recently intensified. Since October, the ADL has increasingly veered towards supporting not just Israel, but expressly Zionism, and equated anti-Zionism with antisemitism Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics. And now "many civil society groups are increasingly reluctant to partner with the non-profit. The ADL has facilitated trainings between US and Israeli law enforcement officers and allegedly spied on progressive and Arab American groups. (The ADL settled a lawsuit stemming from the spying allegations but denied wrongdoing.) In 2021, about 100 social justice and civil rights groups signed an open letter urging other organizations not to work with the ADL. Since the 7 October attacks, the ADL has been working with law enforcement to crack down on college campus activism that it sees as antisemitic. They developed a legal strategy to go after branches of Students for Justice in Palestine, and reached out to 200 university leaders calling on them to investigate the group for allegedly providing support to Hamas, which the group vehemently denies. ADL has described grassroots calls for protests of Israel’s military campaign as “pro-Hamas activism”." - so not just advocacy group, but a group working with law enforcement to interfere with freedom of speech and, well, the last line there speaks for itself - preech false equivalence of the propagandistic variety. Is this really GREL? As good as the best a news source can offer? And from the intercept: How The Adl’s Anti-Palestinian Advocacy Helped Shape U.S. Terror Laws – standfirst: Long before 9/11, Zionist groups like the Anti-Defamation League lobbied for counterterror legislation that singled out Palestinians, a new report reveals., and quote: Emma Saltzberg, the U.S. strategic campaigns director for Diaspora Alliance, an organization that fights “antisemitism and its instrumentalization,” told The Intercept that the ADL’s call for terrorism investigations is contrary to its stated mission as a civil rights group. And then finally we have Jewish Currents, with ADL Staffers Dissented After CEO Compared Palestinian Rights Groups to Right-Wing Extremists, Leaked Audio Reveals, the groups in question here including Jewish Voice for Peace, which the ADL CEO Greenblatt called “extremist” and compared to right-wing extremists. Is this really a source that we consider GREL, with only a ho-hum, "some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine? Only some? Who doesn't? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Has this come about by way of a current dispute? A recent article in the Guardian opens in their own voice, with

ADL has only doubled down on initiatives defending Israel and the policies of the Israeli government amid criticism and staff resignations.The Anti-Defamation League CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, sparked controversy in 2022 when he placed opposition to Israel on a par with white supremacy as a source of antisemitism.

and continues in a similar vein. The bias is severe enough that I think this source should be considered gunrel for IP matters. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It hasn't come by way of a particular dispute, but by way of the ADL repeatedly being brought up as GREL source in conversation with respect to the conflict, which seems entirely beyond the pale at this point. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

They are definitely a clear case for biased but reliable, I’m not sure who fully disagrees with biased in an I/P context. I would call them pretty objective when it comes to other topics, particularly right-wing and other antisemitism.

Regarding reliability, they are broadly cited, even during this conflict, and there are no other issues concerning reliability that are apparent which are not covered by bias.

While a phrasing change is a reasonable idea, probably by removing the opinion sentence and clarifying that the some users part refers to “that should be used with caution, if at all.” and not to the biased part, I see no reason to remove the ADL from the GREL list or to even re-discuss the topic. FortunateSons (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The phrasing can hardly be changed without a re-discussion of the topic. One does not make changes willy-nilly to RSP. But thank you for your constructive engagement on the possible oddities here. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

We could definitely remove the second to last sentence for being specifically outside of policy, if we find unilateral consensus here, no? I think editors who could be perceived to be on “any side” of this conflict are still here to build an encyclopaedia, and using unattributed opinion pieces if we don’t do it for a Paper of Record is nothing anyone should support. As I consider the last sentence to be merely a linguistic and not a content error, requesting a new close could fix that, right? FortunateSons (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If there is additional sourcing available similar to that of the Guardian, I fail to see how this source can be considered as anything other than generally unreliable for IP matters. If such sourcing exists, an RFC to clarify that seems desirable. Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I suppose if one had to point to one particular issue, it would be this Guardian phrase again: "ADL has described grassroots calls for protests of Israel’s military campaign as “pro-Hamas activism”." - I would say that this strays far beyond mere bias and into the realm of quite chronic falsehood. This is an extremely problematic position. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The linked tweet (so not what we would use anyway) sounds within a reasonable interpretation of the facts, though I’m not very happy with tone (read: bias) either. Some of the “grass-roots-activism” is definitely supportive of at least some of the methods and goals by Hamas which were otherwise criticised by (western) media. As unfortunate as it is, warnings were somewhat reasonable based on some of the attacks on Jewish and Israeli institutions and organisations outside of Israel which happened over the last few months. FortunateSons (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

And bias is kind of covered, so unsure we need to change anything. Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Its statistical reporting of antisemitism has also been rubbished by tenured law professor David Bernstein [76], so even if we're cool with the propagandizing, its facts are a problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources doesn’t list Tablet (magazine), but I’m going to stick with biased but reliable unless shown otherwise, despite it being somewhat right-wing.

With the exception of the bomb threats (were I disagree with the outcome but understand the argument, as I would count 163 bomb threats against Muslim institutions to be Islamophobic even if not intended to be as such), I would say that the ADL response appropriately addressed most of the issues at hand. Do you disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I emphasized the author precisely because it was a professor, so regardless of the hosting source, it's a subject-matter expert speaking. He highlighted among other flaws an extremely skew-y methodology, misleading presentation, and ultimately concluded: "The ADL itself is primarily to blame for how its own study has been misconstrued and misused." The ADL's response was the usual fluffy PR waffle and hardly addressed the meat of the concerns, or any of the specifics, in the slightest. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have found past reporting to be pretty clear, but I guess that’s subjective FortunateSons (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

David Bernstein is a right-wing tenured law professor who strongly believes that measuring, monitoring and indeed most forms of opposing racism are generally bad pursuits, who in 2017 was attacking the ADL for its reporting on antisemitism under Trump, but even he does not criticise the way they recorded data, but the way mainstream media reported their findings (which he said their press release was partly responsible for). The meat of his concerns that the what the ADL calls antisemitic incidents are not violent incidents and therefore shouldn't make Jews feel unsafe. We absolutely should not see his opinion piece as indicating unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct. He also criticises the type of incidents captured, including those found later to be unrelated to antisemitism but which the ADL did not discount. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

But ADL were very upfront about this in the report: Jewish institutions, including Jewish schools, community centers, and museums as well as synagogues, were the targets of 342 anti-Semitic incidents in 2017. This is an increase of 101% over the 170 incidents recorded in 2016. However, this number includes 163 bomb threats made in the first quarter of the year; the vast majority of which were alleged to have been perpetrated by a troubled Jewish teenager located in Israel. Excluding those bomb threats, the total number of incidents targeting Jewish institutions is 179, an increase of 5% over the 170 incidents targeting those places in 2016.[77] To me, this transparency shows we can use them as a source for facts, and perhaps just double check that we're not misinterpreting what they are counting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

But it's still calling threats by a Jewish teenager antisemitic incidents? Are they implying self-hatred? Iskandar323 (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The question here is: does the ADL giving the figures both with and without these reported incidents in the 2017 report, and being explicit about doing that, mean they're not reliable for facts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

That's one question. Another is whether they are competent at categorising information in the first place. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the ADL's reputation, that is what we should be basing this on? Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I find the fact that even the group's own staff have been protesting at its partisanship and targeting of other civil rights groups over the past 12 months (Jewish Currents (March 2023), The Guardian (January 2024)) is pretty indicative of the issues at hand. Even if the ADL hadn't arrived at naked partisanship prior to Greenblatt, it surely has done so under his leadership. Now Jewish Voice for Peace, for example, have been grouped with the antisemitic crowd for advocating for Palestinian rights. So now, at least in the IP conflict sphere, the ADL appears to be anti-civil rights where it conflicts with its pro-Israel messaging. Given that the organisation's original merit was deemed to be in categorising far-right extremist groups, when it makes analogies between Jewish Voice for Peace to far-right groups and calls them "left-wing extremists", it is using the weight of that voice oppressively. So it is now leveraging its position within the civil rights community to take a stand against other Jewish groups when they conflict with it ideologically, which is remarkable to say the least. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• It seems like they are becoming more partisan recently including with their domestic coverage. I don't see any reason to cite their output on the I/P conflict—it's not like they do original reporting or scholarship in that area. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• As the person who opened the original ADL RfC, I specifically asked the Israel-Palestine question because it seemed to me that the ADL was partisan on this topic, an opinion I still hold. While I think the ADL is a useful source for far-right extremism ala the SPLC, there are much better sources for the I-P topic area. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Does anybody ever use it as a source on I-P itself? That would be bizarre. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  I recall it being used to state that the phrase "from the river to the sea" is antisemitic, which is the sort of usage I had in mind. I don't think it's unusable to represent its own opinion, but it's views definitely should be attributed to the ADL rather than stated as fact. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's being cited in the Finkelstein thread on this page right now. Levivich (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It's been brought up in Talk pages that the ADL (and in related discussions the SPLC) are RS with regard to what can be called a "hate group" etc -- I think that's the more typical citation we see, rather than for facts on currents events like I-P. Their methodology on this similarly comes under criticism from time to time, but it somewhat depends on the types of activity they're covering (which is part of the problem -- a lot of the methodology behind their pronouncements, particularly for smaller groups, is opaque). Generally in such articles the ADL's pronouncements are cited with in-prose attribution, unless (as in bigger articles) they are backed up with peer-reviewed scholars claiming more transparently something similar. (I seem to recall we used to have information on think tanks and advocacy groups on the WP:SOURCETYPES section of WP:RS, or somewhere else, but I cannot find it; this seems a notable gap in otherwise extensive coverage.) SamuelRiv (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: 1. The fact that you don't like the politics of a certain source is not a reason to declare it unreliable. The only justification for deprecating a source from "reliable" to "not reliable", in general or on any specific subject, is to show that it has started to make false factual claims (in general or on a specific issue) in a rate that is significantly larger than it made before, and significantly larger than the average rate of false claims that appear in other reliable sources. You didn't present any proof of that here with regard to the ADL.

2. I strongly reject your suggestion that holding the view that "antizionism is a type of antisemitism" is a reason to declare someone as unreliable. The idea that "antizionism is a type of antisemitism" is very far from being a fringe idea. On the contrary, it is a very common and mainstream idea. See for example here, here, and here. It's true that there is a minority that thinks otherwise, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a mainstream idea. Claiming that holding this view makes the ADL unreliable source means that every news organization that has any political mainstream view (that is contested by some people) should be considered unreliable. For example by this logic the NYT should not be considered a reliable source on American politics because it endorsed Biden over Trump. But of course nobody would make such a preposterous suggestion.

3. Furthermore there is a clear and simple justification for the position that "antizionism is a type of antisemitism": what anti-Zionism claims is that, unlike all other nations, the Jewish nation doesn't have the right of self-determination in its homeland. This is a discrimination against the Jews, i.e. anti-Semitism. In other words the view that "antizionism is a type of antisemitism" is equivalent to the view that "like all other nations, the Jewish nation has the right of self-determination in its homeland". If you think that holding the view that "the Jewish nation has the right of self-determination in its homeland" make a source unreliable, then by the same logic you should also declare almost all of the Western media as unreliable because they support the view that "the Ukrainian nation has the right of self-determination in its homeland". And by the same logic you should also declare all of the Arab and Muslim media (and most of the Western media as well) as unreliable because they support the view that "the Palestinian nation has the right of self-determination in its homeland". All of this is of course completely preposterous. Vegan416 (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, the first example seems to indicate that the appropriateness of equating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is actually deeply contested rather than mainstream: In the US, Palestinian rights supporters have long rejected conflations of Zionism with Judaism, noting that many Jewish Americans identify as anti-Zionist. The three attestations of anti-Zionism being anti-Semitism, as found in the linked sources, are from government legislators or appointees (the U. S. Congress, the French Parliament, and a seemingly trial-level court ruling from a judge)—these are not journalists writing for reputed periodicals or academics writing in scholarly venues. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hydrangeans

I don't know in what kind of country you live, but In democratic states (like the US, France and Germany) the government and legislators are representing the people, and therefore the opinion of the government and legislature (especially when it has vast majority in them) is BY DEFINITION a mainstream opinion. Vegan416 (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you know how Wikipedia works. Legislatures are not reliable sources on Wikipedia. Otherwise the US Congress could say that Iraq has WMDs and we'd have to print it in Wikivoice. Loki (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that a legislative body is not an RS. However, I would consider a decision by a major US legislative body to be a strong indication that it isn’t a fringe idea.

In this specific case, the correlation (and disputed causation) between anti-zionism and antisemitism is at the very least broadly discussed and therefore not fringe. That doesn’t have to mean that it is true, but it does likely mean that it isn’t fringe.

While the discussion itself is interesting (but out of scope), I think the fact that the argument by @Hydrangeans considers it contested and not fringe is enough to show that antizionism = antisemitism is not fringe (enough) and therefore does not impact reliability. FortunateSons (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The decisions of a legislature have no impact on reliability at all. A state legislature once tried to declare that pi = 3.2 exactly. Doesn't make it so. Loki (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

True, but regarding social issues (as this is), a significant amount of bodies making such decisions indicates that it isn’t a fringe view. Right? FortunateSons (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Not in the Wikipedia sense of the term. Per the guideline on fringe, in Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field (italics added), not the "prevailing views of legislators elected by the public" or even "the prevailing views of the general public" (which legislators don't necessarily represent anyway; consider gerrymandering and how it makes legislatures more extreme than and less representative of their constituents).

As far as understanding the prevailing views of the field—that's to say, scholars who study antisemitism, discrimination, etc.—one could do little worse than Oxford University Press' Antisemitism: A Very Short Introduction (2015 [2nd ed.]) which states, To equate anti-Zionism and antisemitism is, however, far too simplistic, theoretically crass, and demeaning to the memory of those who suffered the horrendous consequences of real antisemitism (116). The ADL is out of step with the field. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I unfortunately don’t seem to have access.

While not quite as good as your source, the NYT article shows that it is disputed, at least enough to not be fringe.

Additionally, this subject matter expert describes a significant correlation: source

Second source from the same expert. FortunateSons (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The excellent NYTimes article on the subject provides many views but in no way endorses the concept that anti-Zionism is antisemitism. The last line is “I think there is a contempt for active, engaged American Jews who think it’s not just about Israel existing,” she said, “but Israel existing in a context that does include the Palestinians.” O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you removing the personal comment.

The article does not claim that antizionism is per se antisemitism, but clearly discusses it as one of a handful of “mainstream” view points, showing that an/‘the’ newspaper RS does not consider it a fringe view, otherwise it wouldn’t be discussed like that. FortunateSons (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The ADL's position seems to be more complex and flexible than anti-Zionism = antisemitism. This is evident from their analysis of/attack on the Jewish Voice for Peace organization here as part of their "Anti-Israel Activity" backgrounder reporting. An example quote is, for example, "Criticism of Israel or of Zionism is not inherently anti-Semitic. But sometimes it is." In any case, this kind of wide-ranging discussion seems too far removed from the advice at the top of the page, "Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.", to produce a result of practical use to editors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Loki

1. I know very well how wikipedia works. What you seem to completely misunderstand is that the discussion here is not at all about whether we should put in an article the statement "Antizionism is antisemitism" as a fact in the wiki-voice. I would actually completely object to doing so, because it is clearly a matter of opinion and not of fact.

2. If on the other hand someone would have suggested to write in some article the the following statement "The view that antizionism is antisemitism is a far from being a fringe view in the USA, as is evidenced for example by the landslide vote in favor of it in the house of representatives" as a fact in wiki-voice, that would be completely ok and acceptable. The RS which will establish this fact would not be the legislature decision itself, but rather an article describing the vote in some RS such as for example this https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/world/middleeast/house-anti-zionism-antisemitism.html. This simply follows from the dictionary definition of "fringe". A view that is held by 3/4 of the population, or even just 1/2 of the population simply cannot be fringe. This would be a contradiction in terms.

3. But in fact, even this is not the discussion here. The discussion is whether the fact that someone holds this view disqualifies him from being RS. So you criticism here was completely irrelevant and off the mark. Vegan416 (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Fringe-ness is not decided by the opinions of random people, it's decided by the opinions of experts in the relevant field. There are many things that the majority of Americans believe that are unambiguously WP:FRINGE. Most Americans believe that ghosts exist. Loki (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Loki

I completely reject this. The opinion of 75% of the US legislature is not the "opinions of random people". And the analogy to belief in ghosts is not relevant, because this is not a scientific question at all but rather a political/semantic one. The definition of antisemitism is not a question of fact, but rather of opinion, and there is no scientific definition of antisemitism. That means there is really no need to rely on experts on this question.

But if you insist on using experts in the field, then it is easy to demonstrate that the view that "antizionism is antisemitism" is far from being a fringe idea even among experts in the field of the research of antisemitism. For example in 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance adopted a Working Definition of Antisemitism, which endorsed the equation of certain manifestations of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. And here are several more references to RS which support the claim that antizionism is antisemitism:

https://books.google.co.il/books?id=767fCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA161&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.co.il/books?id=BHtrEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA448&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Vegan416 (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The notion that AZ = AS is misused to protect Israel and that includes IHRA misuse. Some people do use AZ to hide behind, but one cannot use that in order to tar every anti-Zionist with the same brush and people that do that are contemptible. As is quoted above, "To equate anti-Zionism and antisemitism is, however, far too simplistic, theoretically crass, and demeaning to the memory of those who suffered the horrendous consequences of real antisemitism". Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion and the opinion of whoever wrote that sentence you quote. But I subscribe to the view that denying the Jewish nation's right of self-determination in their historic homeland is a type of antisemitism, and so are many experts as I have shown, and so are 75% of the US legislature. If that means you think that I am contemptible, well I'm sorry about that, but I can live with it. It won't make me change my mind. Vegan416 (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Bias is not an issue, factual accuracy is. Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Sure, so do you think it is a factually accurate statement that Jewish Voice for Peace are left-wing extremists? Because my sky is blue reading of that is that it is tripe. Based on the ADL contention that anti-zionism = antisemitism, Jewish Voice for Peace are also antisemitic. So are we happy with allowing the ADL to label (as fact) other Jewish groups as antisemitic – essentially the classic "self-hating Jew" pejorative for those that don't toe the line, but sadly not in this instance rolled out for comedic purposes. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That all smacks of OR. What do RS think? Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Well it isn't. I presented you with the Jewish Currents and Guardian articles just above. Did you miss my comment, and have you actually read the contents? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You mean the stuff about what some of their staff think? Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Aside from that RS reporting, there's also this Times of Israel piece on the ADL's long-standing antipathy towards Jewish Voice for Peace. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That an RS reporting disgruntled staff, not them saying it is unreliable, and the new source seems to be the one calling JVP far-left, not the ADL. Nor doers it seem to be overly crucial of the ADL. Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Are we missing the point that the ADL is an advocacy group that publishes material without peer review or anything by way of an editorial board? If it were a lobby group that advocated on behalf of companies, it wouldn't get anywhere near RSP, but because it is a lobby group that advocates on behalf of a country (a foreign government in the context of the US) it appears to get a free pass. The tuppence from the Nation entitled "The ADL Goes Full Bully: The organization’s new campaign against anti-Zionist and Palestine-solidarity groups is a clear sign that it lacks the credibility to lead on civil rights issues." Iskandar323 (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

No i am missing the part where RS say (in their words) it is not reliable, and with this I am out, and I suggest others users drop out as well rather than bludgeoning the process, we have all had our say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems worth mentioning that the guideline on original research applies to how we write articles and is not a prohibition against carefully studying sources to gauge independence, reliability, etc. There are plenty of reasons to still prefer assessments from reliable sources, and I generally do so—but in this case the question becomes academic, because Iskandar323 has provided a source. The Nation article linked in their prior comment states outright, at the end of the article, in the body text, the ADL lacks the credibility to lead on issues of equality, discrimination, and civil rights. Credibility is the fact that someone or something can be believed or trusted. If the ADL cannot be trusted on questions of discrimination and civil rights, it is not a reliable source for identifying hate speech/activities, assessing social movement groups, etc. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hydrangeans

The problem with your argument is that The Nation itself is considered by most editors to be a partisan source (See here ) so you cannot use subjective claims coming from it to disqualify another source. Vegan416 (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe ADL is a reliable source for facts in the topic area where it has expertise, e.g. in reporting on right-wing hate groups or conspiracy theories. The problem is about its judgement in using contentious labels such as "extremist", which are labels WP generally ought to avoid anyway. It is also the case that it is hasty in labelling Israel criticism as antisemitic and fails to distinguish between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. For this reason, we should not say "X is antisemitic", citing only ADL. However, as it is heavily cited and notable, it would often be noteworthy for us to say "ADL describe X as antisemitic", balanced with noteworthy opposing views where applicable. In the specific example given above, if any publication of the ADL called e.g. JVP extremist or antisemitic, that might be noteworthy (especially if reported by secondary sources) but not something we should relay in our own voice without attribution -- but it anyway appears that this was the personal opinion of the CEO rather than an official statement of the organisation. ADL has absolutely no expertise on Israel-Palestine itself, and I cannot imagine why anybody would cite it in that topic area. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful for editors to link to a Wikipedia article that uses ADL for the I-P conflict for context. Oxfam is an advocacy group, and I have seen a secondary source quote Oxfam for use in the I-P topic area, so I am not sure if ADL being an advocacy group excludes it from being reliable. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• It's green because it doesn't misrepresent facts. The main contentions I'm seeing here that I feel like I can refute are that:
  • The ADL is unreliable to use for factual statements of anti-Semitism because it conflates anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism.
    • In response to this, it already states in the RSP listing that the ADL must be attributed for claims of antisemitism. This is already the status quo and doesn't necessitate going down in reliability.
  • The ADL is biased in the Israel-Palestine topic area.
    • This is again, already the status quo and RSP says to use it with caution in that area.
  • The ADL accused some campus groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) of supporting Hamas.
    • Students for Justice in Palestine supported the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. [78] [79] The exact quote from SJP is contained in their "Day of Resistance toolkit". [80]

      • Today, we witness a historic win for the Palestinian resistance: across land, air, and sea, our people have broken down the artificial barriers of the Zionist entity, taking with it the facade of an impenetrable settler colony and reminding each of us that total return and liberation to Palestine is near. As the Palestinian student movement, we have an unshakable responsibility to join the call for mass mobilization. National liberation is near— glory to our resistance, to our martyrs, and to our steadfast people.

    • This is what the ADL was referring to when it said that SJP supported terrorism. [81] Generally, when someone makes a statement in support of a terrorist attack, it's assumed that they also support the terrorists that committed the attack. @Iskandar323: says that:
      • I suppose if one had to point to one particular issue, it would be this Guardian phrase again: "ADL has described grassroots calls for protests of Israel’s military campaign as “pro-Hamas activism”."
    • I would like to hear how the above statement isn't "pro-Hamas".
    • I also don't understand why this degrades the ADL as a reliable source. Currently, the ADL targets many groups that make violent threats against Jewish people, such as neo-Nazis that glorify the Holocaust. Another quote from SJP's toolkit:
      • Settlers are already fleeing the land, their ‘dedication’ to the settler colony is easily broken. The dedication of Palestianians for their national liberation is unshakable.
    • If I'm not mistaken, this is glorifying the genocide of Jewish Israelis and acclaiming how many were turned into refugees during the conflict. The ADL's position has not changed during the conflict or since October 7th. Generally, they oppose groups that advocate for the murder of people because they are Jewish, regardless of if it is Europe, America, Israel, or anywhere else in the world.
• The burden of proof here is to show that the ADL isn't publishing the truth. As far as I can see, this burden hasn't been met. I welcome inline replies as I put this in point-form. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  No source is presumed to be reliable. The burden of proof is precisely the opposite: those arguing that a source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy should be prepared to show it's the case. (t · c) buidhe 03:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  The claims made by the source are substantially true and it's already been shown to be reliable in previous discussions. There's been no evidence offered to show that this has changed. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Chess: I don't believe I raised a single specific point about this group called the SJP, but instead focused entirely on JVP. One might call it somewhat strawman-ish to respond to entirely different specifics than those that were raised. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  JVP is an extremely controversial group in the Jewish community, not just for its anti-Zionism but also its association with radical Palestinian groups and individuals, including convicted terrorists. You can literally read about in on their own Wiki page, but it’s no surprise a mainstream Jewish group like ADL would regard JVP very poorly. Toa Nidhiki05 16:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I fully support Chess's position that the ADL is a reliable source and that the status que should not change. Vegan416 (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• It's very frustrating to see the decline of the ADL into a propaganda org for Israel over the last few years because it has been a valuable resource for tracing American nazis and neo-nazis. I would suggest the exercise of extreme caution in the use of ADL sources - likely inappropriate for anything even tangentially related to Israel. But if it's dealing with issues surrounding Americans that it is identifying specifically as Nazis in a context not involving Israel it would likely still be at least somewhat reliable in that context. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've also found this In These Times piece charting the ADL's slow-motion abdication of its civil rights leadership role. There's also this Boston Review piece in a similar vein, though not sure if it's guest analysis or opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  The Anti-Defamation League: Israel’s Attack Dog in the US

  "Posing as a civil rights group, the ADL has long operated as an intelligence organization targeting Israel’s critics. So why does the media still treat it as a credible source?" Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• This is a complicated one because:
  • The ADL is clearly unreliable regarding the I/P conflict. They're mainly cited for whether or not a group is a hate group, but they regard essentially any opposition to Israel at all as antisemitic, which is not anywhere near a mainstream position on this issue. Just going by their public statements, they'd accuse the vast majority of nations in the UN of antisemitism just based off their official positions towards the Israel-Palestine conflict. No newsorg in the world would repeat those accusations in their own voice, so it's clear their accusations in the area are not credible.
  • Despite this, when talking about antisemitism outside the context of I/P, the ADL clearly are a reliable source, and often a useful one.
  • This would normally justify two entries (compare WP:FOXNEWS and WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS), except that it's fairly often the case that these two areas of expertise converge on each other and cannot clearly be separated. For instance, it's sometimes the case that pro-Palestine organizations do things that could be viewed as antisemitic, such as protesting outside a Jewish-owned business that donates significantly to Zionist causes. For an organization to have credibility in this situation it needs to be able to judge the situation neutrally, but the ADL clearly can't, even though there is some credible reason to think there's antisemitism going on.

So I think my general inclination would be to lower the ADL overall down to yellow, and make a separate red entry for the ADL on Israel/Palestine. Loki (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps keep green for the moment on things not related to Israel and Jews, but I think yes, just having a warning in it about such matters is inadequate when it actively harasses Jews who are against Israel's expansionist policies. NadVolum (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable in I/P area; possibly in others. This is an advocacy group so the threshold is higher than for a standard peer-reviewed secondary source. Recent coverage suggests that the sources is not only biased but may be unreliable. For example, The Nation dismantles ADL's claims that "U.S. Antisemitic Incidents Skyrocketed 360% in Aftermath of Attack in Israel" and asks ...why does the media still treat it as a credible source? --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable in I/P area. Agree with Coffman. Conflation with disagreement of Israeli politics or Israel itself with antisemitism is problematic to a dangerous level. A defamation league cannot itself falsely defame others. Period. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable for I/P and antisemitism, broadly construed per Simon, Loki, Coffman, OP, The Guardian, The Nation, et al. Treating criticism of or opposition to Zionism or Israeli govt policies/actions as antisemitism makes them unreliable on these issues. They really shouldn't be used as a source for anything IMO, as they're an advocacy group, not scholarship or journalism. (For the record I'd say the same about SPLC, Oxfam, Heritage Foundation, Greenpeace, etc.) Levivich (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Reliable for I/P and antisemitism. The ADL believes that the Jewish nation has a right of self-determination in its homeland like any other nation, and that therefore antizionism is antisemitism. This is a very reasonable position, and even if you are against it for some reason, it is definitely not a ground to declare the ADL as unreliable. Furthermore, there is no scientific definition of antisemitism, since this is not a scientific question but rather a question of political opinion (or of semantics) so the question of "expertise" is irrelevant. But if one insists on "expertise" in this field then clearly the ADL can be viewed as experts in it, as they have been researching it for more than 100 years. Vegan416 (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Vegan416: Your comment is signed "Levivich" instead of "Vegan416". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Hydrangeans: I've struck the original erroneous signature and added an unsigned template, so it should be good to go now, thanks. Left guide (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  corrected. The editor interface here is really inconvenient to use. Vegan416 (talk) 06:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable on the Israel–Palestine topic area and on antisemitism. Coffman and Loki sum up the matter well, and the quotation I provided further up from Oxford University Press' Antisemitism: A Very Short Introduction, 2nd ed. (2015) grounds some of my reasoning: To equate anti-Zionism and antisemitism is, however, far too simplistic, theoretically crass, and demeaning to the memory of those who suffered the horrendous consequences of real antisemitism (116). The ADL is out of step from the field. To Vegan416's comment, I would say that reducing Zionism to a right of self-determination in its homeland is eliding other aspects of Zionism, including those that are what some critics of Zionism take issue with, like settler methodology and negating the diaspora. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  this is the definition of Zionism https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zionism:

  "Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews".

  Please explain how being "anti" this idea is not being against the Jewish nation's right of self-determination. Vegan416 (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also "negating the diaspora" is not an integral necessary part of Zionism. The fact is there millions of Zionist Jews who live in the diaspora. And I don't understand what you mean by "settler methodology". In any case criticism of Zionism is not defined antisemitism by the ADL. What the ADL defines as antisemitism is real antizionism, i.e. the belief that Israel doesn't have a right to exist as a Jewish state in the Jewish nation's historical homeland. And I said before this is view of the ADL is quite mainstream Vegan416 (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also, in 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance adopted a Working Definition of Antisemitism, one which subsequently was officially recognized by various governments, foremost among them, the United States and France, which endorsed the equation of certain manifestations of anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

  And here are several references to RS which support the claim that antizionism is antisemitism:

  https://books.google.co.il/books?id=767fCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA161&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

  https://books.google.co.il/books?id=BHtrEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA448&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/29/comment Vegan416 (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is not the place for a debate like this, we are here only concerned with reliability of ADL, not these other distractions. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  But one of the main arguments of the person who opened this discussion here was that the ADL is not a reliable source because the ADL says that antizionism is antisemitism. And some of the other editors here follow suit. So how can we answer his question without discussing this argument? Vegan416 (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  I and others have replied elsewhere about the idea that AZ = AS, in general that is false (and no, I do not want to debate that with you). Selfstudier (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Nobody forces you to debate with me. But I of course reject your opinion that it is false. Vegan416 (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Generally unreliable: I was actually also just about to open this discussion. The ADL has been historically controversially in matters relating to antisemitism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict generally, having been embroiled in espionage and defamation campaigns against pro-Palestinian activists. But that's not the only source of controversy; the ADL was even engaged in a propaganda campaign against Nelson Mandela and had numerous other controversies relating to its recognition of the Armenian genocide. Recently, the ADL has broadened its definition of antisemitism to label pro-Palestinian demonstrations as such, even in the face of increasing internal dissent within the organization, and critical investigative reports done by the Guardian and the Nation [82] and [83]. The Nation's report published two months ago went as far as describing the ADL as Israel's "attack dog" in the United States! This is an extremely historically controversial organization which has not been reliable. Every single claim made by this organization needs to be attributed, if used at all in controversial cases. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The Nation itself is considered by most editors to be a partisan source (See here ) so you cannot use subjective claims coming from it to disqualify another source. Vegan416 (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Twice you have said this, The Nation is green, ie generally reliable, even if biased. Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian is also green, and we can definitely use their reporting to disqualify a controversial source like the ADL. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The ADL is also green, ie generally reliable, even if biased. And so it should stay. Vegan416 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Idk about that, I'm thinking there are enough caveats being expressed here that we should perhaps consider a formal RFC to look at that, what do others think? Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, quite possibly. We now seem to be at: highly partisan, tone-deaf advocacy group that can't be relied on re: IP, antisemitism or its catalog of hate symbols ... But maybe, just maybe, might be reliable for its material on far-right hate groups in the US? (Talk about a niche reliability disclaimer!) Iskandar323 (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The ADL does sloppy research on 'hate symbols'

It has repeatedly come up on related pages that the ADL cannot be trusted when it comes to researching symbols. The research they put forth is utterly terrible and would not pass an introductory course on the matter.

An example that caused a headache over at our own Black Sun (symbol) article (back in 2019) is their entry on what they call the "Sonnenrad" ([84]). This entry appears to have once been intended to be about the the Black Sun (symbol), but an earlier version appeared to have no idea what the word Sonnenrad was used for (and seemed to have been copied and pasted from an earlier, non-ADL resource without much thought).

As the entry today says (probably after someone their encountered our discussion of it), the German noun Sonnenrad is literally 'sunwheel' and can refer to any number of other symbols, including the swastika. Nonetheless, the ADL still hasn't bothered to make a separate Black Sun entry, an important neo-Nazi symbol today.

Their symbol database is full of other poorly-researched entries with dubious 'facts', like on the group's entry for the Wolfsangel symbol (entry). Here the ADL claims it is "an ancient runic symbol", which is completely false. It is not a character from any historic ("ancient") runic script. And I know they've repeatedly been asked to correct this by scholars.

Most of their entries on historic symbols are just a mess (like this one, where they use the "life rune" term throughout without noting that this comes from 1900s Völkisch circles and is not 'ancient'). And that's just the beginning of the issues with this article — all their articles on runes are just a total mess. They are certainly not something we should be considering reliable.

The ADL could easily correct the many issues in these entries at any time by bringing on an expert. To date they have expressed no interest in doing so despite positioning themselves as authorities on these topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/sonnenrad seems to actually say all of what you say about the sonnenrad, seems pretty balanced to me. Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Adjusted above. While still garbled, confused, and incorrect, the ADL revised the entry to make more sense, and that's why there are only images of the Black Sun with it. This sloppy 'research' led to an obnoxious discussion over at the article's talk page ([85]) and it's why the ADL lacks a Black Sun entry, despite the attention the topic has received. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  So what do they say that is factualy incorrect? Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Besides the Wolfsangel example above, the misinformation about the Black Sun, and the lack of research about the "life rune"? The whole database is riddled with errors, provides no authorship information (who wrote this garbage?), and cites no sources. I could easily put together a long list here. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  What misinformation about the black sun, what do they say about it that is wrong? Not a long list, one factoid they get wrong, just one. Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm discussing historic issues with the site. The current entry is better than the old one but it remains a garbled mess that isn't clear that what it's discussing, not even calling the Black Sun symbol by name. And the Wolfsangel isn't an "ancient rune", for example. Poor 'research' like this continues to cause issues on relevant Wikipedia entries. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

All Black suns are sonnerad's that is not incorrect. And the Wolfsangel is a rune as all runes are "Runes were used to write Germanic languages (with some exceptions) before they adopted the Latin alphabet, and for specialized purposes thereafter." so yes it is a rune that dates back to at least 1299, Thus is can be argued that even Ancient is not wrong, as it is a matter of perspective. So this is a POV issue, not an inaccuracy one, so with this you have the field. Ohh and correcting errors is a sign of being an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)]

"so yes it is a rune that dates back to at least 1299" — lol, what on earth are you talking about? The Wolfsangel has never been a part of any historic ("ancient") runic alphabet. That's an objective fact. It does however get confused for 'an ancient rune' by non-experts and here we see this happening with the ADL, which is unacceptable for a resource positioning itself as authorative.

Are you remotely familiar with the runic alphabets? Do you know what a rune is? We have plenty of articles on these topics.

I strongly suggest that you do some very basic research before commenting further. When someone has genuine concerns about reliability and demonstrates poor research, step one is for you to become familiar enough about a topic to discuss it before attempting to do so.

Furthermore, there's one Black Sun (Schwarze Sonne) symbol and it's from the mid-1930s-early 1940s. It gained its name in the 1990s and it's just a type of 'sun wheel', which is nothing more than a category with a questionable name. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I remember this discussion occurring at Azov Brigade, I forget the conclusion though. Selfstudier (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Together, the lack of sourcing, the lack of care, and the cavalier nature of these entries suggests it is a bad encyclopedic resource. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Our own articles must have citations and authorship. However, that is not a requirement for sources themselves (or not necessarily). The lack of bylines in The Economist, for instance, is a bit of a pain, but does not render it non-RS. A lack of citations or hyperlinks in a magazine piece would not render it non-RS if the magazine were otherwise deemed reliable. If there are factual errors, that is another matter, and those seem more worth highlighting. Freelance-frank (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Not all sources provide their sources, but most sources have some sort of provenance. News sources have editorial boards, academic papers have peer review, even think tank papers normally have a list of sources, and the ADL has what exactly? Blind trust? Iskandar323 (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It literally states, sourced, on the Wolfsangel page that this symbol is sometimes mistaken for a rune, but appears in no runic alphabet. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like that the list of perennial sources should note that the ADL is unreliable regarding hate symbols. Cortador (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... this is actually all fairly convincing that the ADL just shouldn't be a reliable source in general. Especially failing to correct the Wolfsangel mistake is a big one: that's a clear mistake of fact and while making it doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on them, not correcting it absolutely does. Loki (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that, in general, most of the organizations that purport to make lists of "hate symbols" just kind of throw whatever crap in there. For example, if you look at the ADL's "hate symbols database", you will see entries for:

• 1-11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 18
• 23
• 28
• 33/6
• 38

I don't really think a classification should be taken seriously when, of the two-digit numbers between 10 and 40, ten are hate symbols. jp×g🗯️ 10:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

If you look at these entries, it’s clear that in context they are indeed hate symbols. When “12” appears in an Aryan Brotherhood tattoo as a symbol of the AB it is absolutely a hate symbol. The fact that a lot of things are repurposed as hate symbols does bit make a listing of them unreliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• This all depends on what it's being used for. If there's debate over whether something is an ancient rune, no, the ADL should not win that argument. That's simply not their lane. If you're writing about how a symbol (whether an ancient rune or anything else) is used by a Neo-Nazi group, yes, ADL is a good source. Their hate symbols projects are widely cited in both scholarship and the press. Not scholarship as in "let's explore the ancient history of a symbol with help from the ADL" but scholarship that intersects with hate speech, hate groups, bias, etc. On that the ADL is seen as an authority (even if their popularity is decreasing over the last few months...). Yes, there are a lot of numbers in the database because there are lots of symbols that have been either created or appropriated by one or more hate-related purposes. As for whether to include it in an article like 12 (number), that's a good WP:WEIGHT debate for the talk page. Even in the historical criticisms above, OP acknowledges they've made improvements, and that doesn't even concern the main contribution of the project, which (again) isn't a history of the symbol in general but how it's used as a hate symbol. Where have they been wrong about whether or not a given symbol is a "symbol of hate"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Digging through the database, some dubious claims:

  • There's a lot of numbers in there, as previously stated. Some of those, like 14 and 88, definitely are white supremacist symbols. But others I feel are more dubious, and are sourced mostly to relatively obscure prison gangs. I feel like to be a hate symbol a symbol needs to be used enough by racists that it at least competes with the ordinary use of the symbol, which is not the case for the numbers 11 or 13.
  • They claim that ACAB, short for "all cops are bastards", can be a hate symbol. But I frankly don't think this is plausible: the term is used by a whole lot of anti-establishment groups, most of which are on the left, and any use by hate groups seems like a consequence of this broader meaning.
  • They claim that anti-antifa images are hate symbols. I say confidently as someone personally on the far-left that basically the entire American right and much of the American center is against antifa, often to a weird degree, so this is again a symbol that is used by hate groups to refer to a broader meaning and not a hate symbol itself.

  (Overall though, my verdict from picking through the database is that the ADL is a reliable source for whether a symbol is a hate symbol or not, even if they're not always great about the historical details. Notably there's nothing in here about pro-Palestine activism, which was my main worry.) Loki (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The closer I look at the database, the more errors I find. Seriously, to whoever wrote this junk: Have an expert come in for a few days focused on the database. It would resolve all your issues.

Many of these entries are uncessary and many necessary entries are missing. Those that do exist are riddled with issues. I know from personal experience that several scholars in my circle have reached out to even volunteer to correct the material for them. There is just no excuse for the many problems here but getting this right does not appear to be at all a priority for the ADL. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Given the indent, I presume this is a response to me (oops, sorry -- on second look it might be to Loki, in which case nevermind). Where are the errors related to relationship between these symbols and hate speech/hate groups, and who are the experts that have criticized it in that regard? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The more obscure a symbol is, the more useful ADL is as a source. With a common term like ACAB, we’d probably find better sources than ADL. With a Nazi prison gang, ADL would be a very good source for saying something like “it uses the number 12 in its tattoos”. I’d be wary of WP ever saying in our own voice “x is a hate symbol” because that’s not a statement of fact. But we might want to say “ADL considers x a hate symbol because of its use by y”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean, that is what I mean: something being included in their database basically just seems to mean that somewhere, at one point, some group of people was racist, and that was one of the six things in their logo. That part is true, but it's really not clear to me that being "listed" is WP:DUE.

I am reminded of some time when a government agency (I forget which) made a list of warning signs that someone might be a domestic terrorist, loaded with all sorts of completely asinine nonsense like "doesn't post on social media", "wears a jacket in the summer", "has gotten a speeding ticket" etc. I mean, maybe if you are looking for the bomber in a crowd of people in the summertime and one of them is wearing a huge puffy jacket, they've got it under that, but this factoid really doesn't seem worth mentioning in jacket or summer or even really terrorism. jp×g🗯️ 22:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera reliability

Very concerning incident this week surrounding AJ reporting and keeping on their website for more than 24 hours erroneous reports of rapes committed by IDF soldiers in Al Shifa hospital.

AJ quietly deleted all references to the supposed incident and has not provided any retraction. A former editor (and current AJ journalist) has come forward to provide context, but the organization has remained mum.

Keeping up this completely unverified story for a day, then removing without retraction is potentially in serious violation of RS standards. I understand AJ more often than not abides, but this is an egregious violation nonetheless, and well beyond any acceptable journalistic rules:

Reportage:

Times of Israel: Al Jazeera takes down video falsely alleging IDF rapes in Shifa Hospital

Haaretz: Al Jazeera Deletes Video Claiming Woman Was Raped by Israeli Forces in Gaza Al-Shifa Raid

New York Sun: Al Jazeera Says Its Story That IDF Soldiers are Raping Gazans Was Fabricated Mistamystery (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This reportage all comes from sources with deep ideological biases and as such I'd question us taking them at their word that Al Jazeera isn't reliable. Frankly it'd make a mockery of WP:NPOV to deprecate Al Jazeera but not Times of Israel. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You're evading the core point. Al Jazeera staff literally confirmed the retraction. This has nothing to do with the reliability of the sources provided, it's well attested beyond those three posts. Mistamystery (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

And you're evading my core point. That it'd be disingenuous to begin treating AJ as unreliable on the basis of this considering the multiple times that Times of Israel and Haaretz have reported IDF talking points as fact that later proved to be misinformation, often without retractions. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Please provide examples of IDF talking points that were published and later proven to be "misinformation", as opposed to later updating of information.

2. This is far more significant. This is direct reporting from what they claimed to be a verified source who was - in fact - completely fabricating the story. Mistamystery (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

How about the Jerusalem Post claiming a killed baby was a doll and then silently removing the story from their webpage? And no, al-Jazeera never claimed it was a verified source, that is completely made up. nableezy - 17:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post appears to have made an announcement retracting and apologising for that story, which is more than Al Jazeera has done. I also note you’ve described JPost as JPost is generally closer to garbage than fine, so I’m not sure why you think saying Al Jazeera is no different to JPost is a defence of Al Jazeera. BilledMammal (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Because the Jerusalem Post actually said that this wasnt a baby, this was a doll and the evidence was fabricated, and all of that was a lie. Al-Jazeera only said that there is a witness saying that this rape happened, and that was true. Al-Jazeera later determined that person was not being honest, but they did not report as fact something that was a lie. Jerusalem Post did, and does often. Like here claiming there are confirmed images of burned and beheaded babies from October 7 (there is not). That story is still up for the record. nableezy - 17:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that story is still up. Unbelievable. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

How about? The argument above stays. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

They asked for examples of Israeli misinformation, I gave that. nableezy - 17:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.palestinechronicle.com/no-words-can-describe-the-suffering-horrific-testimonies-from-al-shifa/

"Al-Jazeera obtained horrific testimonies of Palestinians trapped inside the Al-Shifa Medical Complex in Gaza City, which has been besieged by Israeli occupation forces for the last six days."

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2024/03/361577/eyewitness-accuses-israel-of-raping-women-during-ongoing-al-shifa-raid#google_vignette

"Civilian Jamila al-hissi, who was trapped in a building near the health facility, in an interview with Al Jazeera reported that the IOF was, kidnapping, and killing women during their raid at the hospital.

“They raped women, kidnapped women, executed women, and pulled dead bodies from under the rubble to unleash their dogs on them,” she told Al Jazeera."

https://peoplesdispatch.org/2024/03/25/executions-detentions-and-sexual-violence-israels-brutal-siege-on-al-shifa-hospital/

"Al-Hassi’s testimony from Al-Shifa described how Israeli soldiers stripped a woman sheltering there and proceeded to rape her in front of her husband and other men, threatening to kill them if they looked away."

https://countercurrents.org/2024/03/eyewitness-says-israeli-soldiers-raped-women-before-killing-them-in-al-shifa-hospital/

"Eyewitness accounts are horrifying. Jamila Al-Hisi, a woman besieged in the Al-Shifa Medical Complex and managed to finally get out told Al-Jazeera the Israeli occupation soldiers are raping women and killing them."

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240325-un-expresses-grave-concern-over-rape-of-women-in-gaza-by-israeli-soldiers/

"According to Al-Jazeera, reports have emerged of rape crimes committed by Israeli soldiers against women in Gaza during the Occupation army’s raid of Al-Shifa Hospital.

Jamila Al-Hissi, who found herself trapped in a nearby building, recounted that the Israeli soldiers were involved in the abduction, rape and killing of women during the raid of the hospital.

“They raped women, kidnapped women, executed women and pulled dead bodies from under the rubble to unleash their dogs on them,” she said."

https://mondoweiss.net/2024/03/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-170-israel-assaults-al-shifa-nasser-and-al-amal-hospitals-in-one-day/

"According to Al-Jazeera, reports have emerged of rape crimes committed by Israeli soldiers against women in Gaza during the Occupation army’s raid of Al-Shifa Hospital.

Jamila Al-Hissi, who found herself trapped in a nearby building, recounted that the Israeli soldiers were involved in the abduction, rape and killing of women during the raid of the hospital.

“They raped women, kidnapped women, executed women and pulled dead bodies from under the rubble to unleash their dogs on them,” she said."

https://www.watanserb.com/en/2024/03/23/tragic-testimony-palestinian-woman-reveals-horrors-amid-gaza-hospital-siege/

"Jamila Al-Hessi, besieged in the vicinity of Al-Shifa Complex, said in a phone call with Al Jazeera on Saturday that the occupation forces burned and killed entire families."

https://en.abna24.com/story/1446410

"Al-Jazeera TV channel quoted the Palestinian Jamila Al-Hassi, who was besieged in the vicinity of the Al-Shifa Complex, as saying: “The occupation forces burned and killed entire families, and raped and killed women.”

Mistamystery (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why you're citing other sources, what al-Jazeera reported was that Jamila Al-Hissi claimed these things, and she did. Al-Jazeera never reported it was true. nableezy - 17:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this list Mistamystery? These are all unreliable sources, I believe, quoting al-Jazeera. While we count use by reliable sources as evidence of reliability, I don't think we count use by unreliable sources as evidence of unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This was answered already in the chain. Not saying those sources are RS. A user was trying to claim - even based on RS sources provided - that the incident didn't happen. Was just showing further evidence of the reporting (as well as spread) Mistamystery (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

We’ve seen this before with Al Jazeera; in the last discussion I presented evidence of them declining to retract false claims about the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion after fresh information emerged.

This isn’t the behaviour we expect of a reliable source; we don’t expect them to be perfect, but we do expect them to be transparent and own up to their mistakes. I think it’s past time to consider Al Jazeera as "additional considerations apply", at least on the topic of the Israeli-Arab conflict. BilledMammal (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's NYT doing their own retraction of witness evidence that was up for far longer than AJ's (1 day). How awful, let's immediately put NYT on additional considerations apply list (sarcasm). Oh, and we've seen this before with NYT :) Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that’s the sort of behaviour we expect from a reliable source; a public retraction. If Al Jazeera had done that we wouldn’t be here now. BilledMammal (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Former managing director of Al Jazeera, Yasser Abu Hilalah, took to X to share that an investigation revealed the news to be fabricated and that the witness, Jamila Al-Hissi, had "exaggerated the details to provoke an emotional response" in an effort to draw attention to the violence in Gaza, particularly during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Good enough for me...and we shouldn't be here now for the latest episode of how awful AJ is according to pro Israel editors, because they report witnesses saying bad things about Israel occasionally (unlike Israeli media which say bad things about Palestinians all of the time, every day, without any witnesses. Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Not for me. Al Jazeera needs to be making that statement, preferably on their own website - the New York Times story you linked is a case study in how a reliable source should respond when additional information reveals they were in error, while Al Jazeera is a case study in how a reliable source should not respond. BilledMammal (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Nope, that is a continuation of the crap story they put out in the first place on the subject, which they first off refused to retract. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Even after all of its witness accounts have been either shredded or cast into significant doubt. So yeah, let's drag NYT before the jury first. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

They reported that somebody claimed this, which was true, and then when they determined it was false retracted the story. Thats what is supposed to happen. They did not say that it was true, only that there was this claim being made. And then determined it was false and removed the claim. That is precisely what a reliable source is supposed to do. That BilledMammal thinks they need to follow the Western sources on Al-Ahli Arab Hospital for a disputed story is interesting but also not all that relevant to anything here. nableezy - 17:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s not what I said, and I ask that you stop continuing to misrepresent me on this.

And what should have happened is Al Jazeera publicly saying they got it wrong, rather than pretending it never happened and leaving their readers with a false impression. BilledMammal (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You said that they made false claims, when their reporting has not been determined false by anybody besides intelligence agencies of Israeli allies. I dont think Ive misrepresented you but feel free to clarify what al-Jazeera needs to have retracted that is proven false, and what that proof is. nableezy - 17:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The claim that Israel is indisputably culpable. That claim isn’t supported by the evidence and should have been retracted when additional information emerged, as genuinely reliable sources did. BilledMammal (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It is supported by evidence though, you just dont agree. Which isnt all that relevant, but when reliable sources disagree we attribute things, not just say oh this one must be wrong so they are not reliable. nableezy - 17:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is definitely concerning, but as almost no source has been particularly good with respect to fact-checking during the conflict, I would suggest we wait how this plays out over the next few days. FortunateSons (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Further reporting:

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/syks8u1kc

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-793560

https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/al-jazeera-deletes-fake-story-about-idf-rapes-in-gaza-hospital-j1uquwad

https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/al-jazeera-quietly-deletes-story-falsely-alleging-idf-raped-palestinians-in-gaza-hospital/

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/artc-hamas-admits-women-not-raped-by-idf-at-shifa-hospital-following-al-jazeera-report

https://voz.us/al-jazeera-retracts-and-takes-down-its-rape-allegations-against-idf-at-al-shifa-hospital/?lang=en

https://www.mediaite.com/news/al-jazeera-removes-video-alleging-israelis-raped-women-in-gaza-as-former-managing-director-calls-claims-fabricated/

https://allisrael.com/al-jazeera-retracts-idf-rape-accusations-admits-story-fabricated-by-female-witness

https://honestreporting.com/damage-done-how-al-jazeeras-fake-news-harmed-israels-reputation-in-less-than-24-hours/

https://taarifa.rw/al-jazeera-israel-disagree-on-idf-rapes-in-gaza/

Mistamystery (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Tell us something new. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Cites i24, complains about al-Jazeera lol. The originator of the propaganda about 40 beheaded babies, and you uncritically cite them and Free Beacon and Honest Reporting lol. nableezy - 17:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: i24, really? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, as stated below, there was a user early in the discussion who was attempting to deny the incident happened at all. Links were provided re: breadth of coverage, not establishing additional RS. Never claimed they were. Mistamystery (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Ill repeat the pertinent parts here, because there is a bunch of misinformation being spread here. Al-Jazeera reported that a woman claimed that Israeli troops had raped a pregnant woman at al-Shifa. They included a video of that person saying this. They did not at all say that this has been confirmed or verified. When they determined it was not true, they removed the video. I havent checked their Arabic site to see if they reported on why they found the claim to be false, but no al-Jazeera did not claim that Israeli soldiers raped a patient at al-Shifa, they reported that somebody at al-Shifa claimed to have seen this. And that was and is true. And also, for the record, this was al-Jazeera Arabic, which we generally dont cite anyway, not al-Jazeera English. nableezy - 17:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it was on Al Jazeera English’s live blog. On 24 March, Al Jazeera released an update on its liveblog entitled, "Israel forces raped, killed women during raid on al-Shifa, witness says." Al Jazeera's update used statements of a witness, Jamila al-Hissi, who stated that "They raped women, kidnapped women, executed women, and pulled dead bodies from under the rubble to unleash their dogs on them.”

On 25 March, Al Jazeera took down its video of Jamila al-Hissi’s statements but kept its written update posted when Times of Israel last checked. Former managing director of Al Jazeera, Yasser Abu Hilalah, wrote on X, “Hamas investigations revealed that the story of the rape of women in Shifa Hospital was fabricated.” Abu Hilalah reported that al-Hissi “justified her exaggeration and incorrect talk by saying that the goal was to arouse the nation’s fervor and brotherhood.”

It is problematic using live blog updates in Wiki articles. The content is hard to verify

here, rape story still up https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/3/24/israels-war-on-gaza-live-19-killed-as-israel-again-fires-on-aid-seekers?update=2794606

except now I have to go change the link in the wiki articles that are using this story, because those links no longer link to the rape story due to the nature of live update snippets updating and pushing down content. I had to web search for the story Wafflefrites (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You better click on the live blog link I just posted. The links to the story keeps changing!!!! Who knows if it changes again. How are we supposed to verify information in the future if the live update links no longer point to the story? Wafflefrites (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you archive it? FortunateSons (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know how to archive. Do I need to take a screen shot? Are there instructions on Wikipedia that you can point me to? I don’t like these live blogs…. They lack context. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You're right, AJE reported that the witness said this. What it says is

"Israel forces raped, killed women during raid on al-Shifa, witness says
A Palestinian woman who was trapped in a building near al-Shifa Hospital has told Al Jazeera that Israeli forces raped, kidnapped and killed women during their ongoing raid on Gaza’s largest hospital.

Jamila al-Hissi, who spent six days inside the besieged building before being forced out by Israeli forces, told Al Jazeera Arabic that al-Shifa was a “war zone”."

Which is all true,Jamila al-Hissi did tell al-Jazeera this. They did not report it as fact though. nableezy - 18:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This may work better. The fact that they haven’t even silently retracted or otherwise corrected this claim that they now know to be false is extremely concerning; this is not the behaviour we expect of a reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The sheer high emotional bombardment of an item that - at minimum - mere requested notice be made of a clear journalistic ethic violation - is telling enough, and reeks of a gang up. People need to cool their jets and get calm before they hit the keyboard.

This isn't about other sources. This is about Al Jazeera. They had a source on air and on their website (who they vetted prior to having on air) state on air that rapes were happening at the hospital, when they weren't. If they have a source on air for an interview, it's because they have determined their information to be factual. They're not just putting live mics in front of people without speaking to them prior.

The story then turned into a major story on its own and went both global and viral (as well as, apparently, having an on ground impact in Gaza itself, it further sources are to be believed).

Standard journalistic practice is for outlets to retract - officially, clearly, and publicly. Not their staffers off-hand. On their website (and in print in the good 'ol days), which did not happen here. Which is why notice was made. It's not controversial.

This is not a measuring contest between outlets, or a competition between Hogwarts houses. The outlets are not in an ethics race, and points are not added and detracted or exchanged. This post is about Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera alone. They platformed and published falsehoods that were spread widely and had immediate impact, and failed to properly retract. That's it and it's irrefutable. Mistamystery (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

And the additional links were posted because one of the editors doubted the incident even happened, not because they're reliable sources. Thanks. Mistamystery (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No, they vetted prior to having on air is completely made up. They said that there is this witness that claims these things. Thats it. Earlier you said Please provide examples of IDF talking points that were published and later proven to be "misinformation", as opposed to later updating of information. and when that is provided you just wave it away. Al-Jazeera broadcast testimony they later determined was false and retracted it. nableezy - 18:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It's global standard practice to pre-interview people who appear live on TV shows. They don't just hand a hot mic to people and let them say whatever they want. Either way, the news source conventionally holds themselves accountable for what they allow to air. They don't exist to air speculation.

Also - I had asked for proven IDF misinformation - you referred to a JPost piece. Mistamystery (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Seriously asking for evidence that the IDF tells porkies? Even the mainstream press is reporting that as a fact nowadays. Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: You haven't become aware of any instances if IDF misinformation unquestioningly repeated in Israeli sources in the past six months? Do you think that suggests a clear eyed view of the media landscape? And in this context, we're meant to go along with your take on Al Jazeera? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

What is this general attitude of "Al Jazeera can only be criticized so long as we discuss other sources" being spouted by people on this chain? There is a clear incident of a news outlet failing to vet a source before spreading contentious, false information - and then later failing to issue a retraction. That is the beginning and end of the matter. Please start separate chains if we are to assess other news outlets. Mistamystery (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The only purpose of the "notice", afaics, is to foment another useless discussion about nothing very much at all. Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is Middle East Eye. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mN1SRUx0R8&ab_channel=MiddleEastEye

Al Jazeera may have removed its video but Middle East Eye still has it on YouTube. Caption says “ Jamila al-Hissi, a Palestinian woman who was besieged for six days in a building in the vicinity of al-Shifa hospital, told Al Jazeera that Israeli forces raped, tortured and executed women inside the hospital.” with no mention of retraction or clarification on the debunked statements Wafflefrites (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, she did tell al-Jazeera this. The video is her telling al-Jazeera this. What they reported is true, that al-Hissi said this. nableezy - 18:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

They reported a witness who made statements that were later found to be false. Once the statements were found to be false, they didn’t update their audience. Using these types of blog reports with little to no context are no better than putting information you see people tweet on Twitter and pasting it into Wikipedia. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I dont even know if thats true, have you checked their Arabic website for any updates on the story? nableezy - 18:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

My issue is with the liveblog. The live-blogging is just like reporters tweeting info. The links keep changing making info difficult to verify and there is little context. I posted a link to Times of Israel above about a former Al Jazeera director saying that Hamas found the allegations false https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-report-alleging-idf-rapes-in-shifa-hospital-retracted/

The Al Jazeera English is still up https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/3/24/israels-war-on-gaza-live-19-killed-as-israel-again-fires-on-aid-seekers?update=2794606 Wafflefrites (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflefrites: No pages should really be using live blogs long-term as sources. This is a WP:NOTNEWS issue as much as anything else. Because yes, live blogs are just a stream of off-the-cuff news and unredacted commentary. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if it is the live-blogging of a RS? Can you please share with me the Wikipedia link or policy that says this so that I can share in my edit summaries before I go reverting other users’ work? Wafflefrites (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The link you shared just says NOTNEWS. Al Jazeera is a RS, other editors are not going to understand why they can’t use this live blog thing. At least Times of Israel is also a RS, so in these cases I suppose at this point is just the burden of putting in other sources per SOURCESDIFFER, which is what I did when I found out the info had been debunked Wafflefrites (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

At a minimum, I think we need to declare Al Jazeera unreliable for attributed statements. They clearly make insufficient efforts to verify these statements, and worse they fail to retract them even after the statements have been proven to be lies - what other outright lies are on their website and now in our articles that they just haven’t bothered to retract?

To put it simply, we can no longer trust that Al Jazeera isn’t promoting disinformation with such quotes - if the quotes are due for inclusion then other sources will have reported on them independently. BilledMammal (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thats nonsense, because what they attribute to al-Hissi is what al-Hissi said. News sources dont verify things they quote others saying. The NYT does not verify the quotes they include are true either, and sometimes they are later found to be false, for example here they are reporting that things that were said to them that they reported, without verifying, are not true. Should we not include quotes from the Times now? nableezy - 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The article you link shows the New York Times retracting a claim they now know to be false. The reason why Al Jazeera’s behaviour here is so concerning is because they aren’t doing the same. BilledMammal (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The original article remains with no retraction, including the claim they now admit is false. And this all happened in the last day, why wouldn't you allow al-Jazeera the months it took the NYT to determine something they quoted to be false the same deference? You wrote They clearly make insufficient efforts to verify these statements, how does that not apply to the NYT here? nableezy - 18:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Because Al Jazeera has already determined it to be false, they just haven’t publicised it.

The New York Times published an entire article that prominently says they were wrong; ideally they would have updated the original article as well, but they have met our expectations of a reliable source. Al Jazeera has not. BilledMammal (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Who's to say when NYT made this determination, how long it took them to make an article about it. But the relevant part here is you saying They clearly make insufficient efforts to verify these statements. Do you think other sources make sufficient efforts to verify statements that they quote? Thats the whole point of attributing a quote, you're saying I dont know this is true but they say it is. nableezy - 19:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said, and worse they fail to retract them even after the statements have been proven to be lies. The blind faith is concerning, but not why we can no longer consider them reliable - we can no longer consider them reliable because they now know the claim is false, but have failed to retract it or issue a correction. BilledMammal (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been a day, and did you check their Arabic site for any updates? nableezy - 19:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t seen any. If you have, please link it - and regardless, an update on just their Arabic site would be insufficient given this story was also published (and still is published) on their English site. BilledMammal (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Al Jazeera is no better than RT. It is Qatari state media and should be deprecated as a propaganda organ. Coretheapple (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  If above is all there is, no reason to do anything at all, never mind deprecate. No evidence of anything systemic. Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  This discussion began two hours ago. Coretheapple (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Al Jazeera as Qatari propaganda and Hamas mouthpiece is one of the major issues that renders it necessary to dispose of as a reliable source, like RT, such as the debacle the other day of informally retracting a false story about rape at Al-Shifa, which is journalistically unethical, after Hamas denied the story. Another major issue is peddling antisemitimic conspiracy and their blatant distortion of historical facts, like posting Holocaust denial videos, claiming that Jewish employees of 9/11 targets were informed of the attacks beforehand, etc. All this can bee seen on the Al Jazeera controversies and criticism. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  This discussion appears to be becoming some sort of race to the bottom to come up with the least substantiated idle aspersions to make about Al Jazeera as possible. It is far more revealing about the editors making the aspersions than it is about Al Jazeera. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note should be added in WP:RSP. Quietly deleting false information does not comply with the editorial standards used by reliable sources. Al Jazeera cannot and should not be considered a reliable source for topics related to Qatar and the Arab/Israeli conflict. According to [86], it has a "Mixed" rating for factual reporting due to failed fact checks that were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias favoring Qatar. It does not qualify as a high-quality source due to direct ownership by Qatar and extreme editorial bias, including being subject to Qatari laws that prohibit any criticism of the government. It should be considered a partisan source in topics related to Qatar, the Arab/Israeli conflict, and minorities in India, and its statements should always be attributed in such topics. Marokwitz (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Media Bias Fact Check is itself not considered a WP:RS. And more generally, reliability is based on a source's broad reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; one incident doesn't generally change a source's reputation until / unless there's broad or sustained coverage to indicate its impact. As previous discussions have determined repeatedly, Al Jazeera has strong WP:USEBYOTHERS and reasonably high-quality coverage describing them as reliable; and right now, the only criticism of them for this seems to be from similarly WP:BIASED sources, which obviously isn't going to be enough to change a source's reputation or assessment on its own. --Aquillion (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

That was a "stealth edit" and is unethical. Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This Arab News article is likely relevant, as is this National Review article. BilledMammal (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the outcome of these lawsuits was? I’ve been unable to work it out, but it may be informative as to whether we can trust Al Jazeera on various topics of interest to Qatar. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Arab News, owned by the Saudi royal family, is certainly not a reliable source on Al-Jazeera or Qatar given their long standing geopolitical rivalry. And the National Review lol. nableezy - 20:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Let me make sure I’ve understood you correctly. Arab News is not reliable on Qatar due to it being owned by the Saudi royal family, and due to Saudi having geopolitical interests in regards to Qatar?

If I have understood you, why aren’t you applying the same standard to Al Jazeera? BilledMammal (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia instituted a blockade of Qatar with one of their demands being that al-Jazeera be shut down, a blockade that was active at the time of that article. If Qatar does that to Israel then feel free to raise that here. But unless you want to rule out Israeli sources talking about the Palestinians I dont think the point youre trying to make is actually one you should be trying to make. nableezy - 20:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

And Qatar is a major funder and ally of Hamas.

As for Israeli sources, which are controlled by the state? And I remind you, I didn’t raise this line - you did, when you dismissed Arab News for reasons that if applied equally would require us to dismiss Al Jazeera. BilledMammal (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, the reasons are not the same. Saudi Arabia engaged in an act of war against Qatar, and demanded the shuttering of al-Jazeera. And I wouldn't cite al-Jazeera for material on the Saudi royal family for the same reasons. And for the record, all the major Israeli news papers get funding from the state and are subject to the state military censor, so that distinction you think you are making isnt quite as strong as you think it is. You have argued that a lobby organization with ties to the Israeli military reprinting an actual piece of propaganda from the Israeli military is a reliable source (here), but want to act like because Qatar has provided funds to the government of Gaza that they are ruled out somehow. Well, ok, you can make that argument if you want, but I dont have to pretend it is a serious one. Arab News, especially while the Saudis were engaged in hostile acts against Qatar and demanding that al-Jazeera be shut down, is not a reliable source for Qatar or al-Jazeera. nableezy - 20:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, it was not an act of war.

Regardless, your entire argument seems to be that you think Saudi’s opposition to Qatar makes Saudi news sources unreliable on Qatar, but Qatar’s support for Hamas has no impact - and you have not justified this beyond thin assertions that Saudi’s opposition is more significant than Qatar’s extensive and long-term support.

I suggest you focus on the substance of the articles I presented, rather than trying to discredit them with arguments that a reasonable individual could equally apply to Al Jazeera. BilledMammal (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

A blockade is an act of war. That is very basic. And no, that is not my argument. My argument is that a state engaged in an act of war against another state shouldnt be taken as a reliable source about that other state. And Arab News is an arm of the Saudi state, much moreso than al-Jazeera. And no, a reasonable person cannot apply that to al-Jazeera, as Qatar has not engaged in an act of war against Israel or any other state for that matter. As far as the substance, I did that when I said lol. nableezy - 20:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. The Kip 21:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My understanding is that Saudi didn’t implement a blockade but instead closed their borders, which some sources characterise as a de facto blockade. You could characterise it as an act of war - but you could equally characterise providing billions to Hamas as an act of war against Israel. But we’re off topic here and you’re clearly not going to consider the sources that raise issues with Al Jazeera; I’m going to step back from this line of discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Except Israel was on board with Qatar providing those funds lol. But sure, you can consider whatever you like to be whatever you like it to be. nableezy - 20:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Yeah, Netanyahu encouraged that funding. Was he committing an act of war against Israel? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• The Al Jazeera Media Network is not a reliable source. Look, as many nowadays know, it's no secret that the Al Jazeera Media Network is owned and operated by the government of Qatar, which is an authorian monarchy: it's ultimately just the Qatari royal family persecuting (and executing) whoever they want and for whatever reason they deem. This inconvenient reality is something Al Jazeera avoids talking about unless absolutely necessarily (AJ+ for example attempts to explain this away by comparing this situation to that of the BBC being owned by "British Taxpayers", lol—similar attempts at dodging this incredible situation can be found on other Al Jazeera sites). No matter how Al Jazeera wants to dress sit up, in all cases the buck stops—quite literally—with the Qatari royal family. Time and time again we see the ideological biases and preferences of the Qatari royal family creep into Al Jazeera reporting. I see no reason why we should not instead be using better sources than those owned and operated by the Qatari royal family. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Al-Jazeera is routinely cited by other reliable sources, this is just a series of baseless assertions with no evidence or even relevance. nableezy - 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Al Jazeera also also routinely receives criticism for pro-Qatari slant, and the fact that it is basically an arm of the Qatari royal family has come up here many, many times. My advice: Find a better source, ideally one not funded and operated by a notorious dictatorship best known for its outrageous human rights abuses, or expect inevitable pushback. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

    Unsupported assertions dont merit responses. We determine reliability based on, for example, WP:USEBYOTHERS, not on, for example, a random person on the internet aka a Wikipedia editor disliking a source. nableezy - 20:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

We determine reliability by wide range of parameters, as you know. Additionally, Al Jazeera is a hot topic in WP:RS discussion spaces specifically because of the fact that it's funded and operated by the Qatari government. That's a fact and is far beyond 'just not liking it'. How often do we see other 'reliable' sources pushing for example holocaust denialism? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I missed this Holocaust denial allegation. Two points: First, the video was removed and the two journalists suspended, which considerably mitigates this count against reliability. Second, this was for the Arabic version of AJ+, not published on an actual Al-Jazeera news platform. I think it's already established consensus that AJE is more reliable than the AJ Arabic and that AJ+ wouldn't be used as a source on WP. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Another effort to downgrade AJ after the most recent effort failed to do so and nothing has changed since then, this incident is an almost irrelevancy, possibly worth a mention in the relevant article, nothing more. Selfstudier (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is already covered in the current RSP entry. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• The standard for moving the reliability needle on a source as widely used-by-others, scrutinized, and ultimately praised by both peer-reviewed publications and press organizations as Al-Jazeera (and especially Al-Jazeera English) is peer reviewed literature that refutes the pre-existing literature. See my comments from this discussion for links and quotes to relevant sources. Arguments that do not include that standard of evidence are wasting people's time, and the frequency with which these lackluster attempts occur form a basis for arbitration enforcement measures. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Two comments:

1. Many users need to read WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:OTHERSTUFF. This is a discussion of Al Jazeera. Comments about Times of Israel or Jerusalem Post are irrelevant to the matter of Al Jazeera's reliability.

2. Proposing to downgrade Al Jazeera's reliability based on one single incident looks wildly exaggerated. I suggest this discussion be closed as no change to how we treat Al Jazeera. Jeppiz (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No Times of Israel and JPost published a story that said Al Jazeera’s story was false per a statement from a former Al Jazeera director and a Hamas investigation. Al Jazeera basically published someone’s lies about witnessing rape, and other sources such as Moroccan News and Middle East Eye repeated it. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera’s story is still up, as is Middle East Eye’s and Moroccan News. The former director had the integrity to call out the news source Wafflefrites (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Mediaite and i24 aren't exactly reliable sources, and I personally wouldn't trust a website called "AllIsrael" to report objectively on things regarding the conflict. The Kip 20:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• I myself have had concerns at times regarding Al Jazeera's reporting on the conflict, but that's moreso been due to my own admitted bias rather than journalistic malpractice on their part. While such reporting as above is actively problematic, I'm not seeing much of a reason to fully downgrade; remember, like the recent discussion on the New York Times, generally reliable does not mean always reliable. I don't think we need to do anything here, besides obviously not use info from a retracted claim/piece; at most, I could see dropping AJ's Arab-Israeli reporting to WP:MREL/"Additional considerations," while keeping the rest at GREL (like how we've divided Anadolu Agency's reporting between general topics and CTOPs at WP:RSP), but even that feels like a slight stretch unless a stronger case is built. The Kip 20:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would support that, with a note that they don’t always make retractions after falsehoods have been identified. In terms of a stronger case, take a look at the Arab News and National Review articles I provided above. BilledMammal (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  That isnt a stronger case, thats two highly partisan pieces making claims that serious sources have ignored. nableezy - 21:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Both of those sources are WP:MREL, with one (National Review) being a source I simply don't trust and the other (Arab News) itself being government-backed, as well as published in the midst of the Qatar diplomatic crisis. I'd need to see something on the level of BBC or WaPo for a proper case. The Kip 21:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think I agree with this assessment most, I too have seen issues but nothing catastrophic. I think post-war a discussion on a slight downgrade on I/P specifically is reasonable, but this conduct is at most a facet. FortunateSons (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing the issue here. The claim was directly attributed to a specific person who made the claim. The person's claim was debunked. Al Jazeera honestly weren't even required to pull the articles at that point, many other outlets haven't when they've published attributed claims that were debunked. I do think the comparison to the Jerusalem Post and specifically the "dead child is a doll" claim to be relevant, especially since their reporting wasn't attributed to a person, but the outlet directly making the claim.

Regardless, this thread seems to be largely based on nothing. Though I am noticing certain highly emotional and seemingly POV responses from some editors against Al Jazeera, like BilledMammal above. I think this discussion is more revealing on editor conduct than anything else. Silverseren^C 21:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

What's a continual problem on Wikipedia is that editors with the strongest POV and bias are the editors who flock to highly controversial topics like the Israel/Palestine conflict. They are simply unable to see things from a neutral perspective. This is too much drama for me but my read of it is this has been discussed already, and nothing has changed and this whole conversation is a waste of time. AusLondonder (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

On another note...The National Review? "Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed." The idea we should get rid of Al Jazeera because of an opinion piece in a right-wing American magazine is simply unbelievable. AusLondonder (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Amen to that. The Kip 22:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This is not the first or the only problem with AJ's reporting of the IP conflict. The source clearly has a bias, which is noted in the RSP entry and is described by RS [87]. Their journalist moonlighted as a Hamas commander, or at least was very much embedded in Hamas militia [88].

It doesn't mean that all their reporting is unreliable but we also should take their biases into account, for example when determining the weight of a certain event, or when there is an exceptional claim.

Now we fail to do this. AJ is the single most used source for Israel–Hamas war article accounting for >10% of all citations, and often their reporting is presented in wikivoice. Alaexis_¿question? 22:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The IDF is a reliable source now? nableezy - 22:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I take what they say with a grain of salt but I haven't seen any response to the evidence they provided. Has AJ explained what their journalist was doing with a rocket launcher? Alaexis_¿question? 07:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Those following this war are probably aware that the IDF rarely provides anything even remotely akin to evidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

At the top of the page it says "Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports." Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that when people depart from that, by posing more general questions about a source for example, it often does not go well? Isn't an RFC the appropriate tool for this kind of thing? Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Here’s the Wikipedia article that it’s used in Al-Shifa Hospital siege#Misinformation on rape allegations

I have balanced it out with a Times of Israel article finding. Originally, the article section and title was much worse https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Shifa_Hospital_siege&oldid=1215351572#Mass_rape_claim_made_in_Arab_and_Iranian_media

I actually did not question the Al Jazeera source. I only knew to question and started searching when a third editor put up a maintenance tag here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Shifa_Hospital_siege&oldid=1215487636#24_March Wafflefrites (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The article section is much better now thanks to that third editor’s maintenance tag and The Times of Israel’s additional reporting on the accidental misinformation that was in the live update and then repeated by sources like Moroccan News, Middle East Eye, Mondoweiss. Actually rereading it, it seemed the first editor also question the original source’s content and but posted it anyways. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to downgrade or adjust their reliability, other than perhaps to add an additional disclaimer about its close ties to the government of Qatar. We already caution the source as partisan on Israel-Palestine issues, but I've not seen anything to suggest they are outright unreliable on the matter. Toa Nidhiki05 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05, the problem is that this notice doesn't work. As I said earlier, this is the single most used source for the Israel-Hamas war article, with predictable consequences. The problem with AJ is usually not outright falsehoods but rather what it chooses to cover and whose voices it amplifies. When it writes "according to X, the forces of Y did Z" I'm pretty sure that they are not lying, but many other sources would not report it without further corroboration. Still, as long as it's green on RSP, editors feel that it's good enough for Wikipedia. Alaexis_¿question? 22:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Editors feel that it is good enough because it is good enough. The characteristic you describe of selective information publication is common to all news. This is the basis of bias. You present AJ's choices as if these are unusual, when this is par for the course for all media. But the grosser bias throughout this conflict, as now well documented, is the anti-Palestinian bias in most Western media, which has been breathtakingly appalling. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It also ignores that Times of Israel is cited 81 times, compared to al-Jazeera's 83, Jerusalem Post 11 times, Ynet/Yedioth Ahronoth 20 times, Haaretz 20 times and so on. Israeli sources are cited considerably more than Arab sources. And it takes a special kind of boldness to say as long as it's green on RSP, editors feel that it's good enough for Wikipedia when that same user makes a comment like this about CAMERA while attempting to use it and sources of that quality regularly. nableezy - 23:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I don't remember myself using CAMERA actually but that doesn't really matter. The problem is not that the sources originate from Arab countries but that the said countries have a terrible record when it comes to free speech and naturally their reporting is influenced by the agenda of their governments.

I'm not saying it should never be used, rather that it's now used way more that it's justified and thus its bias seeps into Wikipedia. Alaexis_¿question? 07:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't judge sources by their country of origin, but by the track record of quality and accuracy in their content. This baying for Al Jazeera's blood because it comes from Qatar (ignoring its decades-long track record of quality reporting) is becoming McCarthyite. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if you’d like your memory jogged further. nableezy - 10:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to downgrade AJ based on this. Generally reliable sources are not always reliable so one or two errors does not add up to evidence of general unreliability. We should avoid news blogs and avoid attempting to immediately put every single thing reported in the news into articles, but we already have policy for that. Reporting on I/P is fraught with bias, so we need to triangulate reportage, with AJ being one of the strongest sources not biased in favour of Israel. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia policy that specifically says newsblogs should not be used? or is it softer wording like they should be avoided? Many of our I P articles are extremely “newsy” with a “Reactions” section with quotes from commentators from various countries. Plus there are a lot of I P articles lately that use the Al Jazeera liveblog. I did take a look at some of the older links though, It seems the links stabilize, but are not archivable.

I think the issue might not be Al Jazeera, but overuse of its liveblog and quotes from commentators in the liveblog Wafflefrites (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

No, WP:NEWSBLOG merely says be cautious. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s what I thought. I wasn’t going to go around mass reverting other people’s work without a specific policy saying that you cannot use liveblogs. Plus, the some of the liveblog info most likely could be verifiable if you dig around for other sources… it would just be a lot of work replacing and finding better sources. But, yes, some of the I P articles that use Al Jazeera may actually be using the daily/hourly reported snippets and sound bites. I am not a fan of Al Jazeera using commentators and video taping them, and taking it out of context though without further investigation. I am glad that a proper witness investigation was done by Hamas later though to figure out what was going on. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable. At least as reliable as the New York Times, and my comment on that outlet (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_430#The_New_York_Times) applies just as well to Al Jazeera: "The test for a generally reliable source is not "never fucks up ever"." Daveosaurus (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The test is not "never fucks up ever", but it is "when they fuck up, and they know they fucked up, they correct it". The issue with Al Jazeera is they don't appear to be doing the latter. BilledMammal (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Except, as Nableezy and others have exhaustively reiterated, they didn't even "fuck up" - they released content that was clearly attributed from the start and did not translate the claims from that source into their own voice. They then removed it a day later. This is unlike the NYT, which took garbage testimony from Zaka and others and translated it into unsubstantiated claims of "systematic" sexual violence and left it up for a month without even a whiff of internal scrutiny. Then, when external pressure arose, it begrudgingly raised questions over its original story (though not its fallacious reporting), and began an internal inquest into who ratted it out. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

They published a lie, and they continue to fail to retract it.

The New York Times published a statement from a medic who may have been mistaken about the location or who may have lied, and they wrote an entire article retracting it.

Both were attributed, but that wouldn’t justify the New York Times not retracting it, and it doesn’t justify Al Jazeera not retracting it. BilledMammal (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Saying that someone says something is never going to be a lie. Publications retract falsehoods that they make in their own voice. They are not required to apologise on behalf of false witnesses. Anyone can perform this criticism. I understand that this was something in a live blog. We avoid using live blogs anyway, in part because they're not fully fact-checked stories, and it's ludicrous to imagine that media outlets will go back and add notes and updates live blogs retroactively. Has the NYT anywhere published a piece explaining how Zaka put out a pack of lies? – as demonstrated by basic residency figures. No. They've merely hinted that a subsequent video 'undermines' some of the bunk that was put out. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

For us to trust sources we need to know they are responsible. Publishing quotes that contain information they know to be false without telling the reader that the information is false is irresponsible and contributes to the spread of misinformation. Further, it can result in us including falsehoods without informing our reader that the information is false.

Here, Al Jazeera had behaved irresponsibly, by failing to do the bare minimum of retracting the quote. Ideally, they would go beyond this like the New York Times has done, and publish an article explaining what happened, but given their bias I am not expecting them to do so.

Given your comments about the live blogs, can we at least agree to note on RSP that Al Jazeera’s rating does not apply to their live blog? BilledMammal (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

That's unnecessary. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and live blogs is the newsiest news. They should rarely if ever be used as permanent sources on any pages. We also have WP:NEWSBLOG, which is very clear that news blogs should be used with caution due to the looser fact-checking involved. So it's already in the guidelines, as well as being common sense. So the main complaint here is that they didn't issue a formal retraction online or in print about a live blog entry. To this, I would ask: do outlets typically formally retract live blog entries, or do they just edit their live blogs? Can you provide a historic example of a news outlet specifically issuing a retraction for information from a live blog that never made it into an article? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

do they just edit their live blogs The issue is they haven’t even edited their live page; it’s still up.

As for NEWSBLOGS, it’s not clear that applies to Al Jazeera’s; it talks only about pages labelled “blogs”, but Al Jazeera’s is labeled a "live page". BilledMammal (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Where's it still up? A few links have been posted, but they don't go anywhere useful. And yes, it is clear what a live news feed/blog looks like. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Here; I also linked it above.

It’s not clear to me that such live feeds are what NEWSBLOGS is talking about; it appears to be referring to something closer to opinion columns (host online columns they call blogs) BilledMammal (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

So as Nableezy notes, all it says is that the woman told AJ "X", which is still true. It's not in their voice. What do you want them to do? Falsify the record and erase it, as if the woman didn't make that statement, and they didn't record it? These blogs close at the end of each day and it's not typical for them to be edited after the fact – again, that would be falsification of the timeline of reporting. The video has been deleted directly from the media library rather than by means of editing the live blog. The testimony meanwhile does not already appear in any actual written-up news or analysis, so nowhere does AJ claim to have validated or corroborated the claim, and so there's nothing to update or correct. How many statements do you think exist out there of IDF spokespeople claiming they're not targeting civilians? Obvious garbage, but again, not a problem because they're attributed statements. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK, ffs. Looking more and more like WP:BLUDGEONING. Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Worth noting that when Blinken trotted along to Qatar to ask Al Jazeera to dim their coverage of the war "no specific offending examples of the station’s output were given" – so the US had nyada and couldn't even muster up a proper complaint. The political problem with Al Jazeera is its incisive reporting, due to it being "one of the few news organisations with a functioning bureau in Gaza", and its shining of a torch where Israel and the West would prefer it didn't. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure "functioning" really captures the current situation. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If anything, that AJ has only made a couple of decisions even vaguely resembling slip-ups that anyone thinks worthy to write home about in six months of very isolated war reporting is bloody miraculous, and stands to its credit. It's difficult to verify truth in a war zone. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to revisit the initial incident this thread was raised in relation to, having looked into it further. The OP is assuming that the AJ reporting was false because a former AJ employee tweeted that Hamas had investigated the allegation and found it to be false, as reported (slightly inaccurately) by the Times of Israel. (So anyone who has argued on this page that Hamas or the ministry of health it controls is by definition unreliable shouldn't be giving credence to the refutation, given it is sourced only to Hamas.) There have been other broadly credible social media accounts also saying it was false,[89][90][91] along with the alleged victim's brother.[92] None of these give a source for their claims and none have been reported in reliable sources. Other broadly credible social media accounts have in turn questioned the denials, noting that Hamas don't investigate such incidents and giving reasons why Hamas and the brother would have an interest in the story being refuted.[93][94][95] Again, not reported in reliable sources. In short, even if Al-Jazeera had said the allegations were true (which they didn't), we cannot categorically say that it's not true, so this is in no sense evidence against AJ reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Can't argue with the logic. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Generally reliable, which means exactly what it says. It doesn't mean they never fuck up. When the story was determined false, they took it down. What would we have them do? Leave it up? If we're going to start banging on about outlets getting things wrong and judging them by that then we'd have to judge The New York Times for propagating the mother of all lies about weapons of mass destruction and I don't see anyone beating that drum. This is a non-starter. TarnishedPath^talk 10:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

References

newreligiousmovements.com / cultdatabase.com

Sources: [96][97]

Article: Antioch International Movement of Churches

Claim: "Antioch is listed in a cult database as a New Religious Movement. New Religious Movements (NRMs), often referred to as cults or sects in popular language, represent a broad and diverse range of religious, spiritual, and philosophical groups that have emerged mainly in the last few centuries. These movements are characterized by their relative novelty compared to traditional, established religions, and often by their innovative or unconventional beliefs and practices. The Antioch international movement of churches is also listed on cultdatabase.com."

Remarks: The site 'cultdatabase.com' now redirects to 'newreligiousmovements.com' so it looks like these are the same source. I see no evidence that this source has editorial oversight, a positive reputation, or even any name of a publisher of the site. We therefore cannot tell that this is published by a recognized expert. So it seems non-RS to me for this claim, and it also seems to me that these claims about the Antioch movement are UNDUE if they can't be sourced anywhere else. Finally, the statements in this claim about the concept of NRMs are not in the source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

A further remark, although cultdatabase.com now redirects to newreligiousmovements.com, the two sources contain different content. Making both citations support the same and still round each other out. The URLs cultdatabase.com and newreligiousmovements.com sound like definitive resource sites for a database collection. Furthermore the concept of NRM description is from the same site, https://newreligiousmovements.org/what-is-a-new-religious-movement/ in the "what is a new religious movement" section, which can also be added as a citation, if needed. Austin613 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Austin613, why would you trust newreligiousmovements.com? Who writes it? Who verifies the content? What is their editorial policy? What is their reputation? Schazjmd (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, a correction is needed, it's newreligiousmovements.org. There's a hint there they may be a nonprofit organization. I don't have any reason to believe it contains false information. But these are great questions. They have a contact page, it's best you ask them yourself. https://newreligiousmovements.org/contact-us/ Austin613 (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

My mistake on .com/.org, sorry. I don't see any basis for the claim taht these sources have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Even if we email them, that won't establish such a reputation. Do you have any evidence that they have such a reputation? I have been looking and I can find nothing so far. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

newreligousmovements.org appears to be one of the websites operated by Apologetics Index, who maintain a number of "counter cult" sites. They are not generally regarded as reliable, and are operated via a Christian religious group currently in the Netherlands. They are highly partisan and have been criticised in the past. - Bilby (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. How did you determine and verify they are owned and operated by Apologetics Index? Austin613 (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The connections became apparant when I looked at older versions via archive.org. I am open to being mistaken, but if I am we still have an anonymous organisation running the site, which means that I am uninclined to consider it as reliable. - Bilby (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

And if it is a different and anonymous organization, it's one that seems to still share Apologetics Index's un-academic "countercult" posture. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 14:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm not picking up from archives of newreligiousmovements.org showing evidence of ownership by Apologtics Index. I also don't see "countercult posturing" in newreligiousmovements.org content. To me, it looks like they seek to be rather matter of fact.

Nor can we tell whether the current owner authored that previous domain it seems the owner of cultdatabase.com just took the domain over. There is a several years gap between the last archiving of newreligiousmovements.org and the last old archiving shows an expired domain.

The new content and layout looks very different. Although personally I think the jury is still out, there are indeed still a lot of questions and unknowns yet to be answered. And in the interest of time, for now, I concede the consensus seems to be in this yet to be verified state as unreliable. Austin613 (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The database's countercult perspective is evident in how it has a dedicated page for "Cult Warning Signs" and is willing to call minority religious groups "cults", an inflammatory use of language that does less to encyclopedically inform about a religious group and much more to serve self-serving interests of businesses, law enforcement, and politicians (2022 Fairfield University American Studies Conference paper written by Megan Goodwin, a PhD-trained academic who is director of the Sacred Writes religious studies scholarship program at Northeastern University). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not you can verify convincingly with archived pages that n-r-m.org was in fact produced by a legit organization (reputable or not), the fact remains that in its current, continued form, it has zero information on who what where or when it's written and published. One of the key elements for evaluating an RS is accountability. Here, there is nobody and nothing taking public responsibility for the content on the site. (The contact form is also one-way, with no idea where it goes, and if they respond who is doing so.) That makes it inherently not an RS. (That's regardless of content quality, which I give my separate take on below.) SamuelRiv (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable No clear indication of authorship or publication. No sign of editorial oversight. A closed box and entirely useless for the purpose of an encyclopaedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Not remotely reliable, probably just AI-generated bullshit. Who wrote this? Why should we believe it? Did a human even write this? The entries provide no sources and could very well have just been generated by ChatGPT. Consider for example the site's entry on "Odinism"( [98]). Where to even begin here? First of all, again, no byline, bizarre factual errors everywhere of the type you'd expect from a generative AI prompt, no sources, no further reading. Then there's the AI-generated graphics. Worse than nothing: don't use this crap. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  On the Odinism article: "why should we believe it?": the first 2-and-a-half paragraphs are all in principle verifiable history of the Odinic Rite -- the final two-and-a-half are where it's opinionated POV that is lacking support. I don't see a further indication that the text is more likely than not AI-generated. It also cites a newspaper source for the article's banner image, which could also be considered "further reading". As for the AI-gen image you link, which appears to be the banner for their "cult warning signs" page, it doesn't claim to be 'depicting' anything -- it seems like a perfectly fine use for an AI illustration. (An ideal use, imho.) In terms of content alone, from what you've linked, this is not a terrible site. (I'll make a separate comment on its suitability as an RS.) SamuelRiv (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Your apparent positive feelings about AI-generated material scraped from who knows where (and the various factual problems of the site's absurd "Odinism" article which is in fact a far broader topic than the Odinic Rite) aside, this site is on no planet a reliable source on Wikipedia: Zero author info, zero editorial standard info, zero sources provided = zero uses for Wikipedia. A super easy 'get this crap out of here'.

I won't bother commenting on further on the AI-generated graphics complete with nonsense, pseudo-words. Let's just say this wouldn't fly for a source we'd consider 'reliable'.

But I will say: I sure hope you're applying a much higher standard to the references you're adding to Wikipedia articles. It sounds like someone should check. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I am distinguishing here concepts of verifiability (not limited to WP:V) and factual accuracy. I assess whether it is an RS in a previous comment. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. No indication of authorship and the people running the site. Fully agree with bloodofox, it looks like AI-generated bullshit hosted by some random people (most probably with an agenda, but this doesn't even matter considering how utterly useless and unusable this "source" is for our purposes). –Austronesier (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

MathWorld

The topic of MathWorld whether they are reliable or not has been discussed in WT:WPM, and many articles are relying on it, especially in the external links. See the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics#Is Wolfram Mathworld reliable?. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Minor correction: the discussion is at the Talk page, here. XOR'easter (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• My take is that MathWorld is generally a reliable tertiary source, insofar as it summarizes secondary sources that it provides as references. It is less good itself as secondary source involving synthesis of published sources (and usually not as a primary source, for which I think the standard caveats apply). Usually, a good practice with MathWorld is to chase down any references to secondary literature, often by more than one hop to get to a really good reliable source (e.g., MathWorld frequently references OEIS, a source about which I have similar doubts). So I wouldn't use it for anything controversial, but it's fine as a general source in most cases, and no one should balk at having MathWorld replaced by a much better source in many cases. Tito Omburo (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that MathWorld fulfills the basic reliability requirements of tertiary sources. Within mathematics, the terminology used in the academic discourse is not always consistent and one potential problem with some articles on MathWorld is that they use one definition of a term where other definitions are also possible without clarifying this to the reader. This is not ideal but also not strictly speaking wrong and it does not seem to me that the problem is severe enough to characterize MathWorld as a whole as an unreliable source. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• MathWorld doesn't have a working filter for terminology; they might treat as standard a term which is just a thing a guy said one time. Sometimes this leads to Wikipedia having articles it shouldn't. They're not actively bad, but they're not all that carefully vetted, either. XOR'easter (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. At least when it comes to this particular aspect I think mathworld must be treated as an unreliable source. Gumshoe2 (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• It is useful as a primer to mathematics as a tertiary source too, but if there are issues they do cite refences which could be used to ground claims if needed (e.g. [99]) Ramos1990 (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

notablebiographies.com

Apparently as a result of this comment notablebiographies.com was put on the blacklist in 2013.

The reasoning by User:Fladrif was that the publisher Advameg Inc. is "a content farm looking for eyeballs for advertisers across multiple similar websites. Many of these have been previously discussed and rejected as sources.[100] The biographies are anonymously written. There is no description of the editorial policy, and no identification of who the editors are."

I came across the block when I tried to use https://www.notablebiographies.com/newsmakers2/2006-A-Ec/Biya-Paul.html as a source in Paul Biya.

Notablebiographies.com presents no ads and the biography is signed "Catherine Victoria Donaldson".

Even though Notablebiographies.com is certainly a mediocre source of questionable reliabilty it might still be a useful to attain biographical information that cannot be found elsewhere. Would it maybe be more appropriate to flag it as such instead of blacklisting it altogether?

best regards, KaiKemmann (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, when I looked at previous comments on Advamed Inc. I found that the Paul Biya biography seems to be a copy of this biography in encyclopedia.com (which is likely the legitimate source).

To make it easier for future editors to understand the copy-source relation (and find an alternative source to use in the article) maybe an addition to the infobox that appears when trying to save an edit containing a blacklisted source would be useful.

E.g. like this: "Some blacklisted sources present mere copies of an original or more legitimate source text. To find resources on the internet that could have served as the original source text copy one or more sentences of the blacklisted source and use a search engine to look for the exact quote (by putting the text in quotation marks)."

thanks, KaiKemmann (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Note that Encyclopedia.com is itself an aggregator, the publisher of that particular bio is Cengage. Which I believe is fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Encyclopedia.com has apparently even been acquired by Cengage through Gale.

Since all of this takes a bit of effort to explore, would it make sense to assist users in refining the warning messages about blacklisted sites as I suggested above? If so, where would I go to suggest this?

thanks, KaiKemmann (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I see that notablebiographies.com was added due to a request on https://MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist in 2019. You can ask about the reasoning on that talk page, or you can beg for an exception on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist. Items can get added to the spam blacklist for bad reasons so don't be optimistic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Scott Yenor as a source

See Revealed: US professor was behind extremist site that spread conspiracies Yenor is used as a source in several articles (one is ok).[101] The others use ;https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/07/19766/'] as a source - or at least some do. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Your first link does not seem to work FortunateSons (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed link. Schazjmd (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed everywhere he's been cited. I removed one plainly cruddy old POV addition by someone at 1968 Civil Rights Act. There's some noncontroversial 19th-century history references at other articles from the same teachingamericanhistory.org website that are otherwise backed by other citations. The other citations on a couple feminism topics are from the Witherspoon Institute article you linked (to which he cites an article he wrote for the Heritage Foundation), but the citations are just used to support a one-sentence noncontroversial characterization of Judith Butler. (The rest of his characterization of queer theory in the paragraph is certainly reductionist and probably contentious, but it's not being cited.) (Also c.f. Nussbaum that interpreting Butler is basically choose-your-own-adventure.) I think the source ain't great, fine to replace, but in terms of use so far (in all of 5 articles?) it ain't broke. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting. Doug Weller talk 17:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

EthniCelebs

The above mentioned website has been marked as an unreliable source by an editor. Just wanted to know whether the community feels the same or if it can be used as I found no other source to verify Karlie Kloss' ancestry on the web. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like EthniCelebs is a user-generated site, and thus not something we can use. John M Baker (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussions that questioned that site: [102][103][104][105] Schazjmd (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Per [106] heck yes, it's unreliable, especially in a WP:BLP-context. As a rule of thumb, no website with celeb or famous in the name is a general RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with all above. Probably EthniCelebs is correct in many cases, but no way of knowing when they are right or wrong unless other sources confirm it - and then we don't need EthniCelebs. So no, not reliable. Jeppiz (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If the name alone didn't give me sufficient pause, the broken english in the submission criteria certainly would, and if that still didn't give me pause the mention of us in their submission criteria would be the dealbreaker. Just, No. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Big NO. Nothing has changed since 2016[107], including their Terms of Services: The information on Ethnicelebs is provided for entertainment purposes only. Although we may vet information to ensure its accuracy, we make no assurances that all information on our Site is accurate. And even without this self-declaration of non-reliablity, the very nature of the site (user-proposed content that is vetted by unknown people with unknown credentials) makes it unusable for WP. –Austronesier (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

As it's been brought up multiple times and continues to be added to articles (even by experienced editors), could we list it at WP:RSPS as unreliable? Schazjmd (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we can per linked discussions and WP:RSPCRITERIA. Being such an obvious WP:USERG fail, I'm not sure we should bother, but there is little harm in it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

godreports.com

Source: [108]

Article: Antioch International Movement of Churches

Claim: "Despite initial skepticism, he eventually became a college pastor at Highland Baptist church. As a young pastor, Seibert was mentored by a Pentecostalist named Robert. Robert convinced Seibert to the existence of miracles, such as claiming to resurrect an assistant after he had been declared dead for 3 days."

Remarks: This site looks to have a "board of directors." But, to my eye, the articles don't look like they're approaching issues with a critical or fact-checking perspective. For example, this article literally asserts that a man was raised from the dead in Mexico City. And it generally reads like a friendly PR piece. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing an account being reported as fact vs the fact of a reported account. The source and inclusion is about the fact a claim was asserted, not that the claim is factual. Austin613 (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Does this source have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? Is it an independent source? Seems not. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Mark Ellis seems to have a senior broadcast journalism experience in the field of Christian news. https://www.assistnews.net/mark-ellis/ Christians have a reputation for not lying. When it comes to religious reports, I'm not sure what you're expecting when it comes to "fact-checking" religion, are you expecting us to determine a fact based religion? It's the fact of the report not the fact of the religion that should be under scrutiny. Austin613 (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're answering my question: do you think that this source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, per WP:RS? I do not think that it does. And we are not depending on this source to tell us theological truths; we are depending on it to tell us facts about the founding of this movement. I mentioned it's assertion of a miracle becasue I think that bears on how they think about issues of fact-checking and accuracy in general. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Well it definitely has a bias! I think we should consider it reliable as far as that bias allows and attribute anything it says. Same as instead of saying Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead we would say according to the Gospel of John Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. NadVolum (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

A miracle is theological, so for your purposes I don't see what that has to do with fact-checking and accuracy. You presented a source and its citation in context of a WP article, and those responding (including myself) seem to consider that its use there is not inappropriate. We're generally aware of how RS works. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is what I've been saying. It's not like we're verifying the miracle happened as fact, we're stating an account was claimed to have been stated or confirming this is an example of the type of miracle claim that Antioch believes can or has happened. With the proper context and description, it's allowable. Austin613 (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we are using the source to verify the miracle that it asserts. Let me put the point like this: do you think they fact checked the resurrection of a man in Mexico City like a reliable journalist would? Or did they just assert it without fact checking it? This qustion is relevant to whether they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking as required. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The whole point and context of the inclusion for this claim is that this is what Jimmy Seibert and Antioch believes happened. That an incident like this is something they have stated and is in line with their beliefs. It's not about whether the incidents were fact checked or verified at all. Austin613 (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

They obviously didn't fact check the claim. The natural thing to do here would have been for them to attribute the claim to Seibert. They instead asserted it themselves. That suggests they don't treat fact-checking like an RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The article put Seibert's words in quotes: “He died and they had an open wake for three days in his home. Robert prayed for him and he was raised from the dead. This guy felt God told him he would serve Robert one day.” So they did attribute the claim to Seibert.

I agree with NadVolum and SamuelRiv in the context of this article, fact checking a miracle is unnecessary and it's totally appropriate to state according to cite godreports.com and the Three Loves Book; Robert Ewing was his mentor and "As a young pastor, Seibert was mentored by a Pentecostalist named Robert. Robert convinced Seibert of the existence of miracles, such as claiming to resurrect an assistant after he had been declared dead for 3 days"

"I think we should consider it reliable as far as that bias allows and attribute anything it says. Same as instead of saying Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead we would say according to the Gospel of John Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead."

"A miracle is theological, so for your purposes I don't see what that has to do with fact-checking and accuracy. You presented a source and its citation in context of a WP article, and those responding (including myself) seem to consider that its use there is not inappropriate."

WP:COMMON sense Austin613 (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not correct. They do assert the miracle occurred when they say, without quotation marks, "Even more remarkable, Robert had an assistant that had been raised from the dead in Mexico City." They say this in their own voice without attribution. And it does suggest that they do not fact check the things they say. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say my quote citation was incorrect. The article makes this assertion and then quotes Seibert's words as support.

The entire quote is "Even more remarkable, Robert had an assistant that had been raised from the dead in Mexico City. “He died and they had an open wake for three days in his home. Robert prayed for him and he was raised from the dead. This guy felt God told him he would serve Robert one day.”

“So listening to Robert’s stories and knowing this man was raised from the dead, my faith level was high. I had the evangelism and discipleship tools from Cru.”" Austin613 (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Right, they assert it in their own voice without attribution, and then they quote Seibert. It's the part where they assert it without attribution that calls their fact-checking into question. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

When a statement is immediately followed by a direct quote, this is an acceptable form of attribution in some media. Most commonly, you see it in newspapers and newsmagazines. Obviously "was raised from the dead" is physically non-factual, but in the context you quoted it is not improper or essentially unreliable given the media. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

"Christians have a reputation for not lying." do you have a source for that claim? If true it would be relevant, I've just never heard anyone argue that before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, ever hear about the ten commandments? Exodus 20:16 Not lying is a moral Christian tenant I hear. Austin613 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You are conflating what people believe and how they act, unfortunately history has shown quite well the two are not the same. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

"Thou shalt not lie" is most certainly more well known and associated with Christianity than "History shows Christians lie" What I'm saying is the reputation for this commandment as Christian's established belief is stronger than the connotation that Christians are historically dishonest. That's a very standard assumption in western Christian countries. Austin613 (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The vast majority of people on the planet belong to a religion whose core tenants include honesty/truthfulness, that is not something unique to Christianity or Christians. Nor is the virtue itself something which is associated with Christianity or Christians, its a universal virtue. You didn't say religious people have a have a reputation for not lying, you said Christians have a have a reputation for not lying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you're trying to make a religious argument. Let's steer clear of that. All I'm saying is not lying is a Christian commandment. And because of that well known virtue that Christians subscribe to, it's fair to state that Christians have a reputation for not lying. Austin613 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Christians have no reputation for not lying relative to other religious groups or to the non-religious. If you disagree then provide the source. There are also commandments against stealing and killing, yet Christians have no reputation for not stealing and killing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. It does not have the reputation for accuracy and fact checking that is required. Intrigued, however, I found that you can borrow a book by Jimmy Seibert from the internet archive called The three loves. [109] It describes Seibert's spiritual journey and mentions Robert Ewing's influence in glowing terms ... but there nothing about the raising from the dead story. There is a story about raising a man from the dead (p 165) in the book but it is described as taking place in Mongolia, is simply a report from someone else; nothing to do with Robert. Maybe Ellis got confused. Slp1 (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Slp1, would it be appropriate to rely on that primary source (*The Three Loves*) for information on Ewing's influence on Seibert? Asking becasue this is another dispute we've had at the talk page: use of primary sources for information like this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."

"A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."

"In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed. By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer-reviewed." Austin613 (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source, their about us page [110] pretty much screams "We are unreliable!" to the heavens. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  What about this "screams" unreliability, given what the source claims to be (first-person accounts from missionaries, bylined and curated), and what it would reasonably be cited for (as a collection of primary sources, such accounts attributed inline as opinions and self references)? SamuelRiv (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  WP:ABOUTSELF would still apply which would cover all of those reasonable use cases. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, there are many polices nuances and flexibility regarding appropriate case source usage. Shinealittlelight and I seem to have a sharp disagreement about usage of such sources. Shinealittlelight seems to have zero tolerance for anything but a secondary source. Policy bias I call out. Austin613 (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  No not zero tolerance. I’m just trying to be sure that articles are based primarily on secondary RS and only use primary sources carefully and to a lesser extent than secondary. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thats more of a WP:DUEWEIGHT question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Shape magazine/shape.com

Would Shape (magazine) alongside its website be considered reliable sources? 2600:100C:A219:7127:60B1:E95B:D162:FE4B (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there a specific use you had in mind? It could be reliable for certain things but not others, certain fitness details might be subject to stricter requirements per WP:MEDRS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

In terms of using it as a source for example for beauty trends. 2600:100C:A219:7127:86D:E498:8D04:2D79 (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

That should be fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Flowpaper.com

I ran across this in a reference. The source seems to be definitely self-published, and flowpaper.com seems like a place where you can self-publish something and make it appear like it's a source for Wikipedia. Wanted to check here first and see if anyone else has the same opinion. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Definitely self-publishing, whatever the specific source is could be reliable depending on who the author is see WP:SPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Could be reliable, but probably not a good source if one is looking to see if a person has enough coverage to merit an article on Wikipedia. The subject of the bio wrote the piece themselves and that reference is being used to pad the reference section. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No good for notability, but could be used per WP:ABOUTSELF as long as it's not to self-serving. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:NEWSWEEK

Well would anyone here warrant the inclusion of the following Newsweek citation on the article Catherine, Princess of Wales? It discusses the evolution of the name "Kate Middleton" with regards to the Princess though she has never herself openly acknowledged the name (the name's inclusion in the main article is itself a disputed one). If its considered unreliable, I would readily have it removed. Here's it- Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Afaict it's the cite for this sentence: "It has been noted that the British media opt for "Kate" in their headlines as a result of search engine optimisation, but mostly use "Catherine" in the body of their articles." The source may be ok-ish in context, but per WP:PROPORTION, should we bother to include it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång We already have three citations to support the clause as to how she picked up her common name "Kate Middleton". But user Starship.paint who added it asserts that the Newsweek citation alone speaks of the fact that the British media opt for "Kate" in their headlines as a result of search engine optimisation, but mostly use "Catherine" in the body of their articles. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

How does the Newsweek claim compare to actual articles, if Kate is only being used in headline and not the body of articles they may have a point (WP:HEADLINES would seem appropriate). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That claim actually appears to be true. Take this recent article by the BBC for example. The title reads "Archbishop of Canterbury's Easter sermon refers to Kate and King Charles" and then you start reading and you get a sentence like this "He spoke of listening with 'compassion and sympathy' as Catherine told of her cancer diagnosis." Keivan.f^Talk 15:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The source is reliable for what it says, anything beyond that and how that should interact with WP:COMMONNAME is a discussion for the article's talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for this statement in Marian apparition?

The statement is "However, the question remains: we do not have a satisfactory explanation for the apparitions, whether they are true or not" and the source is in International Forum in Porto “Science, Religion and Conscience” October 23-25, 2003 Actas do Forum International, Centro Transdisciplinar de Estudos da Consciência, 2005 Consciências, 2, Editores: J. Fernandes, N.L. Santos, ISSN: 1645-6564, p. 199-222, something by a physics professor.[111] Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say no. Conference proceedings do not normally undergo the same level of peer-review as journal articles, and this does not seem to be a notable conference. The author (no offence intended) also seems non-notable and his academic output is low and rarely cited (as per Google Scholar). Jeppiz (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I would think it's an exceptional claim to suggest apparitions could be true, the source is probably more reliable then many used elsewhere but doesn't reach the required level to back up such a statement in wikivoice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It should be attributed as opinion. Whether an explanation is "satisfactory" or not depends very much on who you wish to satisfy.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The author discusses the psychology of delusional states which is outside of his professional expertise. What strikes me more, however, is that the statement entirely misrepresents the paper. The cherry-picked near-verbatim(!) quote in Wikivoice is in the opening part of the paper, but if we really want to include Meessen's opinion here, we should go to his concluding paragraph and note that he does not ascribe any physical reality to miracles and apparitions outside of the observers' neurons/minds.

Actually, his conclusions about altered states of mind that produce delusional experiences in ritual contexts are not new at all. So instead of citing Meessen for his actual views ("The seers are honest, but unconsciously, they put themselves in an altered state of consciousness."), we should cite the real experts saying virtually the same thing: ...no one seriously disputes that tens of thousands of people who are physiologically and psychologically typical saw an event that they themselves concluded reflected the direct action of the supernatural. As the extremely skeptical Radford (2013) notes, "No one suggests that those who reported seeing the Miracle of the Sun—or any other miracles at Fátima or elsewhere—are lying and hoaxing. Instead, they very likely experienced what they claimed to, though that experience took place mostly in their minds."

As so often, we're actually not dealing with a RSN question here, but an NPOV issue. The article Marian apparition mostly has Catholic walled-garden sources, which completely runs against our principles of an NPOV encyclopedia. –Austronesier (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier it’s both. We’d need exceptional reasons to use a conference paper, and if it had been a reliable source it still is misused and pov. I’m concerned about the editor who added it. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

the cherry-picked near-verbatim(!) quote in Wikivoice is in the opening part of the paper Exactly. Meessen's opinion has been misrepresented to mean that there is no adequate explanation for the Marian apparitions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No, a classic case of an academic reliable in one field publishing in a completely different field in which they have no expertise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research institute (part of Patna Museum)

Hi, concerning editing articles on Indian history (in particular the state of Bihar), would the publications of the KP Jayaswal Research Institute be considered reliable? They were formed by the Government of Bihar and they are based out of Patna Museum. I have access to quite a few of their publications but want to know the consensus on them.

Their website for reference: https://kpjri.res.in/.

Thanks in advance! Ixudi (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sarma 2017

@Chaipau removed Sarma, Dr. Rabindranath (2017), Ngi Ngao Kham - A Mythical figure of Tai-Ahom people of Assam (PDF), India: Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science, Vol.5 ~ Issue 5 (2017), pp. 14–18, ISSN 2321-9467 from the page Ahom kingdom while it's a WP:SECONDARY published in a reputable Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science. Can anyone help whether it should be removed or not!!! 47.29.174.60 (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science is published by Quest Journals, which is listed on Bealls list of potential predatory journals. Looking at Quest Journals itself, the combination of big advertisements advertising "fast high-level peer review" and lots of grammatical errors on the website itself are bad signs. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Rosguill. This was precisely why it was removed. Chaipau (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguill Are these Sources Reliable?

1. Sircar, D.C. (1988), Studies in Ancient Indian History, Sundeep Prakashan, ISBN 9788185067100, ISSN 88900958 {{citation}}: Check |issn= value (help)

1. Assam State Museum (1985), Bulletin of the Assam State Museum, Gauhati Issues, 5-6, Department of Archaeology and Assam State Museum, p. 104

1. Karthikeyan, Varun (2023), Kāmarupā to Assam: Re-evaluating Ahom origins & role jn Pre-colonial Assam, ResearchGate, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.35938.71361

1. Terwiel, B. J. (1996), Recreating the Past: Revivalism in Northeastern India, JSTOR, p. 275–92

1. Chetia, Kironmoy (2021), Traditon and Faith of the Tai-Ahoms and Deoris of Assam (PDF), International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), p. 310, doi:10.21275/SR21601120141, ISSN 2319-7064

47.29.168.193 (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

IJSR's website [112] looks very sketchy, so the Chetia 2021 source may not be reliable. It also appears to be the case that Karthikeyan (2023) is an undergraduate thesis, which are generally not considered reliable (only PhD theses are, unless the thesis is also published by a reliable publisher). The others look OK at a glance, although reliability is obviously dependent on context. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

thankyou, @Rosguill for your time and energy. 47.29.166.63 (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Factfocus.com

I'm seeking your opinion on whether this source FactFocus.com is considered RS and suitable for use in BLPs.? The website is managed by Ahmad Noorani, but unlike The Pakistan Military Monitor, other journalists have also published stories on this website. PS. the website is also blocked in Pakistan due to its reporting. @ARoseWolf, ActivelyDisinterested, and SheriffIsInTown: —Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any immediate concerns has anyone contested it's reliability? If so it would be helpful to hear their reasoning. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, another self-published source, I only see the reports by Ahmed Noorani and he is the person who owns this website, WP:RSSELF is clear about self-published sources that they are generally unacceptable. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Ahmed Noorani is not the only author, See this, this, this and this. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 05:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: No objections have been raised regarding the reliability of this source yet. However, I thought it prudent to gather opinions before using it, considering the potential labeling as a self-published source, which it isn't. Noorani is a co-founder, so unlike TPMM, he isn't the sole authority here. Additionally, many credible journalists have contributed to this website. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You shouldn't try to 'pre-approve' your sources, as anyone objecting could raise points not thought of before - invaliditing any discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Have other reliable sources used the source (and how)? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  There's a couple of pieces about the site being blocked (Press Partners, Reporters Without Borders), and I can find it used as a reference in a couple of reliably published works (Questions Internationales, Reconfiguring the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (Routledge)).
  VoA[113] and Bloomberg[114] ran reports covering the site, it's investigations, and it being blocked.
  I didn't give a definite answer as I'm no expert of Pakistani media, but I would disagree with classing it as self-published. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: FactFocus stories are frequently cited by Pakistani RS such as DAWN, The Friday Times, The News etc.IMO FactFocus due to its rigorous reporting on critical issues, should be considered as a RS if not already. The fact that the website is blocked in Pakistan serves as evidence of the well-researched and verified nature of their articles. Merely dismissing it as a self-published source overlooks its legitimacy and the valuable information it provides. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact that a country blocks or allows a source has zero bearing on its reliability. Having said that, and noting my recent comment above, I can't see any reason to dismiss the source out of hand. It doesn't appear to be self-published, it's used by other sources, and I can't find any reports online that would cast doubt on it.
Of course that just makes it 'generally reliable', no source is considered 'always reliable'. So as always editors are expected to use good judgement when evaluating sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Long-used sources being questioned

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.

---

Information about the official residences Rideau Hall and Citadelle of Quebec being the Canadian monarch's residences in Ottawa and Quebec City has been present in those articles, as well as Monarchy of Canada, for some years, supported by various sources. Said information has been deleted from Rideau Hall and from the infobox at Monarchy of Canada on the grounds that the sources aren't "official enough". (See Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Residences.) The following are the sources used:

For Rideau Hall:

• Department of Canadian Heritage (2015), A Crown of Maples: Constitutional Monarchy in Canada (PDF), Ottawa: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, p. 34, ISBN 978-1-100-20079-8
• Bousfield, Arthur; Toffoli, Gary (2010). Royal Tours 1786–2010: Home to Canada. Dundurn. pp. 163, 168. ISBN 978-1-5548-8800-9
• Tidridge, Nathan (2015). The Queen at the Council Fire: The Treaty of Niagara, Reconciliation, and the Dignified Crown in Canada. Dundurn. ISBN 9781459730687
• Tidridge, Nathan (2011). Canada's Constitutional Monarchy. Dundurn. p. 92. ISBN 9781554889808
• Bousfield, Arthur; Toffoli, Gary (2002). Fifty Years the Queen. Toronto: Dundurn. pp. 10, 29. ISBN 1-55002-360-8
• Elizabeth II (1 July 1959). The Canadian Queen's Dominion Day Message 1959 (Video) (in English and French). Ottawa: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
• Galbraith, William (1989), "Fiftieth Anniversary of the 1939 Royal Visit", Canadian Parliamentary Review, 12 (3), Ottawa: Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
• Tidridge, Nathan (2015). The Queen at the Council Fire: The Treaty of Niagara, Reconciliation, and the Dignified Crown in Canada. Toronto: Dundurn Press. ISBN 978-1-4597-3068-7
• Delphi Classics (2022). Complete Works of John Buchan (Illustrated). Essex: Delphi Classics. ISBN 978-1-909496-58-3
• Lanctot, Gustave; Royal Tour of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth in Canada and the United States of America 1939; E.P. Taylor Foundation; 1964

For La Citadelle:

• Skaarup, Harold A (2012). Shelldrake: Canadian Artillery Museums and Gun Monuments. Bloomington: iUniverse. p. 119. ISBN 9781469750019.
• Bousfield, Arthur; Toffoli, Gary (2002). Fifty Years the Queen. Toronto: Dundurn. pp. 10, 29. ISBN 1-55002-360-8

Clarification's being sought here on whether or not the above sources meet WP:RS and are sufficient to support the assertions that Rideau Hall and La Citadelle are the Canadian monarch's official residences. (The status of the same buildings as the governor general's official residences isn't in question.) ₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:32, 1 April 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.

Film Threat

Film Threat (filmthreat.com) publishes film reviews, many of which are cited on Wikipedia. Since 2011, they have offered paid reviews. As our article states: Since 2011, those seeking a review from the site can pay between $50 and $400 for varying levels of service, ranging from a "guaranteed review within 7–10 days" to a package that includes a guarantee of "100K minimum impressions". As far as I can tell, they do not disclose on review pages whether or not the review was paid for -- at least, none of the reviews that I have checked include such a disclosure.

The source has been discussed here at least once before, at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_96#FilmThreat.com, and the consensus there seemed to be that it was reliable for film articles. However, the discussion did not touch on paid reviews. It happened in May 2011 and it's possible that was before Film Threat introduced that service. Therefore I'd like to revisit the topic. I know that many editors have expressed the view that e.g. Kirkus Indie reviews are neither reliable nor count for notability purposes.

Are reviews from Film Threat reliable sources for critical commentary about a film, such as in a "Reception" section? Do they provide evidence of notability, e.g. under WP:NFO #1? Jfire (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as reliability goes, part of the problem with the Kirkus Indie reviews is that Kirkus shows the review to the author/publisher before release and gives them the option to choose for the review to not be published at all. This opens the door to critical reviews being suppressed, which leaves us with an inability to be totally sure about the Kirkus Indie reviews that do get published.

The Film Threat payment option to guarantee a review does not have this option: Because of Film Threat's commitment to journalistic and critical integrity, you should have no expectations that your project will be given a positive review and is at the mercy of the subjective perspective of the reviewer. Your project must stand on its own, and no refunds will be issued if you are not satisfied with the review. Your project is also not guaranteed to appear on review aggregators and the inclusion of your review is solely based on their discretion. For specifically the question of reliability, this is reassuring. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

SuriyakMaps on Twitter

SuriyakMaps is a Twitter/X account created in March 2017 which publishes maps of the Syrian civil war, the Russo-Ukrainian war, and other ongoing conflicts. Please see https://www.twitter.com/SuriyakMaps/ to become more familiar with the source.

SuriyakMaps was the subject of a July 2021 RSN discussion, where editors agreed it was not RS, citing its anonymity and unclear methodology. The small number of editors involved in the discussion and their apparent lack of experience with Syria war articles has since been used to delegitimize that conclusion, so I hope to establish a firmer consensus here.

The use of SuriyakMaps and other social media war-mapping accounts like it has proliferated over the years, with a contingent of editors defending its use on the grounds of its apparent accuracy and prior use on Wikipedia; for example, see February 2021, April 2021 1, and April 2021 2. A frequent proponent of SuriyakMaps told me here that several years ago, there was local consensus on Syria articles to consider this account RS. I have not been able to locate such a discussion, so at this time I admit I do not understand why it is argued that this account should constitute an exception to WP:RSPTWITTER.

In a recent discussion on the Syrian civil war article, editors agreed that a map which credited SuriyakMaps was not acceptable for use on that article, invoking WP:RS and WP:SPS. There continue to be several dozen maps across Wikipedia which credit SuriyakMaps in their file descriptions on Wikimedia Commons. I am opening this discussion after boldly removing those maps and having been reverted.

Is SuriyakMaps an acceptable source for the maps that appear on Wikipedia articles? Thank you for your time. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Not reliable on Wikipedia. Reliable when citing ongoing conflict map files on Commons due to lack of sources. Ecrusized (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS would tell us this is not reliable at all. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely unreliable per WP:UGC, WP:RSBREAKING, WP:RSPTWITTER and (judging by the content of some of the other tweets from the account) WP:PARTISAN. Jfire (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Film review reliable for historical claims?

In the discussion of the factual accuracy of Article 370 (film), the following content has been added:

This is contrary to the fact that Kashmir ruler Hari Singh had aligned himself with the Indian government only after his kingdom was attacked by the Pakistanis. (Added emphasis)

References

The source is a film review published in a newspaper. The review does say this:

History has it that Maharajah Harisingh was reluctant to join India or Pakistan. He aligned himself with India only after he was attacked by the Pakistanis.

Is this a reliable source for making statements of fact regarding history? No credentials of the reviewer are mentioned in the newspaper. A LinkedIn post shows the author as a specialist in marketing.

(If you are interested in the larger discussion, please see Talk: Article 370 (film)#POV claim.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That article (Article 370 (film)) in the lead, says,

..... criticised it for distortion of facts, depicting narratives favouring the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party due to the upcoming elections and for ignoring the views of the Kashmiris.

based on movie reviews and that sentence should be removed (in my opinion).-Haani40 (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question though. (Note that this is an effort to get outside input. Since you are involved on that page, better refrain.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: How come you didn't notify any of the people involved on this content dispute? You were required to at least mention it on the talk page of the article.

Anyway, this movie has been uniamously criticized for distortion of history and for serving as a political tool for the Bharatiya Janta Party.[115][116] It has been funded by the people connected to the BJP.[117] This alone speaks about the crisis of the reliability of this movie.

The Deccan Herald is a reliable source. You have not provided any sources that why this information needs to be rejected at all. You cannot use your own analysis for disputing the information.

At this stage, you don't need WP:HISTRS for saying that "Moon landing conspiracy theories are false." Capitals00 (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Published Master Thesis

Is this Published Master Thesis a reliable source?

https://digitalcommons.winthrop.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1151&context=graduatetheses

It has been published in several Scholarly websites and thus can be considered a master thesis with significant Scholarly influence and a reliable source. Researcher1988 (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think a PHD would be the minimum standard. Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

But it was published in various Scholarly websites. WP:RS states that master thesis with significant scholarly influence can be considered reliable. Researcher1988 (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

So, I will confess that I am generally wary of Universities' digital commons collections, as it is usually unclear exactly what the editorial control and publication guidelines are. For me, at least, I would need more indicia of reliability before I would call a source like this reliable. But also, even if we were to decide this were reliable, a digital commons source would in no way make a showing that a source was WP:DUE for any given article. I have no problem with a Masters Thesis in theory, but I am not yet seeing it here. Can you show us the scholarly websites in question? As ever, if consensus goes against me, no worries. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books/about/Reflections_Across_Religions.html?id=7Npf0AEACAAJ

https://network.bepress.com/arts-and-humanities/history/islamic-world-and-near-east-history/ Researcher1988 (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

So, the second of those is really just another digital commons source, suffering from the same problems as the initial--in fact, it looks more like an aggregator than anything else. The first is interesting, because it seems to imply it was actually published as a standalone book, but looking closer, it seems like the digital commons content has simply been indexed by Google, maybe? The stock thumbnail and sort of generic entry leads me to believe this is the case, but if someone with more knowledge of google and/or book indexing wanted to weigh in, I would be grateful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I should add that even if we were to cross the bridge of reliability (which I don't think has happened yet), I still see no evidence that this source would be WP:DUE for inclusion anywhere. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I would suspect that there is a reasonable amount of material on comparative theology across those three religions that came from full professors. What is the reason for wanting to include this piece in specific? Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

the article has some new approaches to the subject. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Then it would become a matter of WP:DUE - perhaps we could wait and see whether this author's career leads to any significant academic discourse on the subject rather than rushing to include a Master's thesis just because it's novel. See WP:RECENTISM. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It has been published in several Scholarly websites: what does that mean? Generally, a work is only published once. Probably you refer to the fact that it is available on more than one academic repository, but that doesn't say anything about the quality of a work or its impact. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, using an MA thesis as a source is perfectly ok, but only considering due weight. One way to measure due weight for mention in a WP article is to check if the thesis has been cited in other academic works like peer-reviewed book as journals. A search on Google Scholar (which is very broad in its inclusion of citations, even from blogs and other non-reliable sources) tell us that Heckert's thesis has not been cited anywhere yet. Why should we as a tertiary source cite it then? –Austronesier (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

One way to measure due weight for mention in a WP article is to check if the thesis has been cited in other academic works like peer-reviewed book as journals. this is exactly what I was going to say. If an MA thesis is widely cited then it would be considered reliable, and it inclusion due. But if that's not the case then it's unlikely that it should be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I would generally oppose the use of either a masters or even PhD thesis. Both are works that are published within a single institution. They don't have external review the way a typical conference or journal article would. I would strongly favor finding largely the same content in journal articles by the same author. Springee (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Disagree here, a PhD study that has led to an award has been supervised and awarded by relevant academics. Therefore we can guarantee a degree of quality (as long as the awarding body is reputable). If we don't accept PhD theses we are left with next to nothing on articles on some ethnic groups and languages.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I would concur that a doctoral thesis is far different as far as due weight from a masters thesis. This is especially relevant when you consider that some doctoral theses may later become key texts for seminal academics. Examples include Difference and Repetition and Discourse, Figure. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

A few dissertations are worth citing but they are the exception rather than the rule. I did rely significantly on one when doing my own. However and as an example, most claims that someone might cite from my thesis are better cited to the journal papers I authored during my research. The actual thesis simply assembled the parts into a single document. The journal papers are the real meat of the work and were reviewed by people outside of my institute. In general Wikipedia treats journal articles as a top quality source almost by default. Dissertations and theses are generally treated as someone less that a journal article unless it can be shown that it was used by others. I agree with that. Another way to look at, a journal article that cited only other journal articles (in addition to describing it's own research) wouldn't raise an eyebrow. If that same researcher published a paper that only cited dissertations/theses would seem quite odd. Springee (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I would echo what everybody else is saying. It might be reliable, but it is unlikely to be WP:DUE. Masters theses can be used carefully in badly sourced areas, for example fieldwork with indigenous groups in linguistics and anthropology tends to get considered, especially in cases where the author gets published later on. But even then, attribution and "sticking to the facts" rather than the author's opinion/interpretation is in order. What is the exact claim you wish to source? Boynamedsue (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• To clarify, it hasn't been published, in Wikipedia's meaning, at all: what the OP is presenting is merely an electronically stored repository copy, as every institution keeps nowadays. It is a submission "in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MA', not accepted and published.
  In other news, doctoral theses are RS when the university a respected one, as they go through a form of collective review by the candidate's peers. This takes the form, often, of a viva voce. ——Serial Number 54129 15:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia's definition of published is not that (and is really specific to our purposes). And by a literal (not field-specific technical) definition of peer-review and editorial oversight any degree thesis has that too. This may include the oral defense as well, depending on the program, but the written thesis always has some oversight. "When the university is a respected one" -- this is not necessarily aligned with whether or not a particular academic department, and a candidate's advisory process, is rigorous.

  Generalized discussions about theses (should you want to change existing guidelines) belong at WP:SCHOLARSHIP -- otherwise this board's job is to apply those guidelines. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, we literally have a written guideline there which outlines our policy.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Doctoral thesis is the bar for a reason and even that is a very low bar... As a rule of thumb I would say that anything from a master's thesis which is actually important enough to be in an encyclopedia will have been noted by a more reliable source, so don't use X's master's thesis but if a full scholarly paper later says "X argued that..." citing the thesis then you've got a clear path to inclusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• If it actually did have significant WP:USEBYOTHERS that might make it usable (although it might make more sense to just cite it via those), but I'm not actually seeing it? Google Scholar shows no citations to it at all. What exactly do you mean by "published in several Scholarly websites?" Simply being hosted on some academic websites isn't enough, since those can be fairly in discriminate when it comes to theses. All that indicates is that it was published, and most masters' theses would pass that low bar - it doesn't address the problems that WP:SCHOLARSHIP discusses. Basically, if you want to use it you need to find high-quality sources discussing and relying on it specifically, not just hosting it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

Is ""Prehistoric Ancient And Hindu India by R.D. Banerji"" a reliable source?

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.282613/mode/1up

The author of the book is R. D. Banerji who is viewed as a reliable historian for his work on the history of Bengal. Based Kashmiri (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean that is a pretty dated work. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

R.D Banerji in his book states that

"Devapāla, with the assistance of the Rashtrakuta Dynasty from Central India, managed to defeat a Tibeto-Burman tribe (Kambhoja) in the Northern Indian region." - ( Prehistoric Ancient And Hindu India by R.d. Banerji, page number 260 )

His statement is different from other historians so I added his statement in a article but an users removed the citations of his book because R.D. Banerji was a Raj Officer ( as WP:RAJ sources are unreliable )

Can I use this source or should I remove it from the article ? Based Kashmiri (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• I would say it can't be used. Too old. See WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, thank you!! Based Kashmiri (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Articles from Academia.edu

Are articles published on academia.edu considered WP reliable sources? in this case, I'm curious about this article:

https://www.academia.edu/10232697/Mazdeism_Zoroastrism_or_the_first_appearance_of_God Researcher1988 (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend extreme caution. Academia.edu has very poor validation standards. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

For the most part, I think they are OK but need to take them case by case, I think.

Author says he is a grad student (late bloomer) so not a PHD, which I would tend to see as a minimum standard for RS. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Does this make him unreliable though? Researcher1988 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, well the question is not whether he is unreliable, but whether he is reliable (for something or other). Idk what the intended use is but I would prefer a more established RS, particularly if it is for something controversial. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

So, is it ok to use this article or not, the author is a well-known public figure, graduated in history and has several published works on various subjects. Researcher1988 (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said, depends. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking, articles put up on Academia.edu are WP:SPS and not WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Academia is an open repository. You have excellent scholarship from the best researchers who save copies of pre-prints of their work (or off-prints when published) in Academia.edu, and you also have amateurs who put their stuff in Academia.edu because they're too stingy to pay the fee of a predatory journal (or probably are so detached from the world that they don't even know that predatory journals exist). So you could as well ask: are articles written with MS Word reliable?

The article in question is self-published, so WP:SPS applies. In short, don't use it unless it has been written by a subject-matter expert with a track record of peer-reviewed publications in the same field as the topic of the self-published source (which is not the case here). –Austronesier (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Academia.edu, like ResearchGate is maybe usable as a freely accessible link to a peer reviewed article, but self-published stuff on there is unusable unless written by a well-established subject matter expert as laid out in WP:SPS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Researcher1988 you have now made multiple queries regarding using self-published and masters level papers related to Zoroastrianism without really clarifying why you want to use them beyond a vague allusion to fresh perspectives. Could you please elucidate us as to the specific reason you are querying regarding these dubious sources? Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm simply searching the articles and want to question their reliability. is it forbidden to do so? Researcher1988 (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  No but now I definitely want to know what the intended use is. Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Because I don't want later, my sources get branded as "Unreliable," so I'm checking their reliability here to see whether they are usable or not. this page was made for such cases. no? Researcher1988 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  OK, unreliable. Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is that reliability is contextual. Generally self-published sources and masters level academic work is unlikely to be treated as reliable. But in order for this noticeboard to be more definitive we would need to know the context. Also I'm now watch-listing Zoroastrianism. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is a very bad idea, you should only bring sources to this noticeboard if another editor has questioned them. Pre-validatuon doesn't work, as the other editor could bring up points not thought of by those posting here. So getting sources 'approved' first is simply invalid. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Context fully matters. Articles on academia.edu are self-published, so WP:SPS applies. However, it is typically easy to tell if the article comes from a subject-expert or not. Often professors or degreed people publish research there if it is either too short or not detailed enough for a full academic journal. For example, on 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, this academia.edu article was published by a subject-matter expert (Timothy P. Marshall), and was originally published/mentioned at an academic conference. Now if this had been some random person who has either no other publications or is difficult to locate if they are a subject expert, then the source may be questionable. Best case assessment for academia.edu OR research gate papers:

1. Are they a well-known person in the overall field (math, meteorology, archaeology, ect…)?
2. Was it published or presented at a conference?
3. Can a case be made for the person being a subject-matter expert (i.e. other publications in the topic/field or publications in reputable academic journals)?

If the answer is yes to any of those, then I would say the source is ok to use. Obviously, a source can be challenged by anyone, which should initiate a WP:BRD cycle. But, if it passes one of those criteria, then a WP:BOLD addition from academia.edu or research gate is acceptable until a challenge to that silent consensus addition. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

To this solid explanation of how to assess sources on academia.edu, I would add that sometimes authors use academia.edu as a host website for a source they've written and gotten published and reviewed in a conventional way (as a journal article, book chapter, etc.). In those cases, academia.edu might be included as a convenience link, but should not, I think, be credited/treated as the "source" or "publisher". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: We don't use papers presented at conferences as sources as I recall. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Found another problem with this editor's sources. Here they use not just a Master's thesis, but one presented as only part of a Master's course. This will be a taught Master's degree and I've had to mark enough of those papers to know that they are not reliable. The second source's author Jonathan Z. Smith looks reliable but I can't find any Mazdisna encyclopedia . Doug Weller talk 10:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

verywell Health on the spam blacklist

Alright, folks, got an interesting question for you all: Should the website "verywellhealth.com" remain on the MediaWiki spam blacklist?

I was trying to use it as a source for the article Myolysis; I found their article on the procedure ("Myolysis: Everything You Need to Know") to be approachably written, but more importantly, not making any extraordinary claims, nor at odds with other reliable sources - seemingly passing WP:MEDRS for at least limited use. However, I was informed by edit notice that the site is currently blacklisted, for Spam reasons.

Looking into the history of the listing, I'm not sure I agree it should be blacklisted. According to WP:BLACKLIST, "blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers"; it's recommended to try page protection or user-blocking first. However, in the case where this website (and its family of sites - "verywellmind.com" and "verywellfamily.com") were first blacklisted, only 4 users were noted to be spamming it: 3 brand-new accounts, and one IP. It seems like that case could've been stopped with some user blocks. But, the site was blacklisted, just 1.5 hours after the 3 reported users were blocked [118] [119] [120].

These sites remained blacklisted for a long while with no discussion, until these 3 discsussions [121] [122] [123], all of which were opened by Manifestation. The GENERAL SUMMARY I got from those threads was:

• Verywell is probably marginally reliable, and useful for uncontroversial medical information, subject to considerations laid out at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Other sources
• However, the site is popular and prone to spamming

It was recommended that the site get requested to be whitelisted selectively where it might have legitimate use.

So, considering the site at large doesn't seem to fall afoul of WP:MEDRS, and (as Newslinger pointed out in one thread) is popular enough that blacklisting causes a substantial amount of collateral damage by making it more difficult for editors to use this source correctly, I feel like this site should be removed from the Blacklist.

Is there anything I'm missing? Other considerations with how/why Wikipedia might blacklist popular sites? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there actually is something you're missing. There are *four* Verywell sites. Three of them are spamlisted, completely by mistake. When I requested this be corrected, an abusive admin manipulated everyone to keep them banned. When I called him out on it, he further harassed me by reporting me to ANI. The closing admin of that thread falsely claimed that I never presented a need for linking to Verywell (I did). The Verywell sites are not spam sites and have never been spammed. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Look, I read all those old threads, and I came to a similar conclusion you did regarding the sources. But that level of heat isn't necessary here, in this thread. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I read through those old threads and I can appreciate your frustration. I'm wondering, does the LinkReports verywellhealth subpage that you linked on your ANI no longer update? I'm only seeing reported attempts from 2018-07 through 2019-11. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

In February 2024 I participated in Request to not use the spam blacklist to block non-spam sites, which failed. In February 2023 I made a request that the Breitbart Spam Blacklist be removed, which failed. My negative experience makes me sympathize with Manifestation but not be hopeful. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Part of the issue with Breitbart is it was deprecated before being blacklisted. In your push to get it un-blacklisted, many users countered that it wasn't a good source at all, so why bother. It does seem that using the spam blacklist to disallow use of non-reliable sources seems a bit like crossing wires... but in the case of sources so poor they've been deprecated, the end result is the same. Wikipedia doesn't allow citations to those sources.

In the case of the Verywell sites, I never saw a strong consensus to rate these sources poorly. On the contrary, there seemed some consensus that they were marginally reliable. So why they remain blacklisted is a mystery to me. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist: Well, some Wikipedians believe that popular press sources (Psychology Today, ScienceDaily, Men's Health, Woman's Day, etc.) should *never* be used, especially on medical topics, and that other sources should be found. WP:MEDPOP discourages their use, but also states that some of their articles can be of high quality.

I attempted to use Verywell twice. The first was while writing a small paragraph at Remission (medicine) about the term No Evidence of Disease (NED). Verywell has a medically-reviewed article about it with some general info. I couldn't cite the article, because the site is banned.

The second time was while creating ICD-11. Verywell has a peer-reviewed article that summarizes the changes made in the ICD-11 compared to the ICD-10. I couldn't cite it, it's banned.

Several other Wikipedians, with a lot more experience than I have, attempted to cite Verywell over the years, but couldn't, due to false spamming accusations. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

If you want to use a link to a site blacklisted for spamming you need to go to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The wheels of justice grind slowly... here's hoping they at least grind fine. I've made a request there for the one article of theirs I'd like to use. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

About WP:MEDPOP, it does say that popular press "sometimes feature articles that explain medical subjects in plain English", and to "use common sense" to evaluate the quality of each individual article from sources like this. That guideline also recommends: One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source. So there is a legitimate use case for citing sources like verywell in tandem with more scientific, scholarly sources. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned, some Wikipedians believe that only those scientific, scholarly sources should be used. But I do agree with your comment. Lower quality refs can be used as a supplement to 'invisible' sources, i.e. books that are not searchable, papers that are behind a paywall, and other refs that are not easily accessible. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

cinematreasures.org

Is this a reliable source? [124]. For the article Draft:Teatre Victòria. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

New York Times article about the site, and another on Celluloid Junkie. Registered users can submit information, which has to be approved by the site's theater editor. One of the co-founders is "an author and assistant professor of English and cinema studies at Oakland University in Rochester, Mich." A search on Google Books shows a number of books citing it and/or discussing it. A check on newspapers.com shows journalists citing it. It seems to be a respected site. I would be comfortable using it for basic facts. Schazjmd (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: "Registered users can submit information, which has to be approved by the site's theater editor"

I didn't know whether this site was user-generated or not. As per WP:USERGEN, user-generated sources are generally unacceptable but I am not sure whether this applies in this case as the content has to be approved by the site's editor. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@GoldenBootWizard276, that gave me pause as well, but I think that gatekeeping and its general reputation compensate. But this is just my opinion, and I'd be glad to hear from other editors on this question. Schazjmd (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Schazjmd. The topical reliability of the site's principals seems solid. Editorial control combined with the positive reputation certainly make the site acceptable for not only basic facts but, with attribution of course, editorial/interpretive information. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Popspoken.com

Is popspoken.com a reliable source? According to them, All of our journalists, editors and contributors, which are featured in each article’s by-lines, are committed to the trustworthiness of all published content. This is done through a thorough fact-check process honed over the years, and Systematic reviews are conducted periodically to maintain the accuracy and integrity of Popspoken’s articles. I searched for its usage as a source on Wikipedia and found that it is generally used in BLPs (fyi, it is used in other articles as well). Brachy08 _(Talk) 06:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Per [125], I'm not sure this should be considered WP:BLP/WP:N-good. Seems (group) WP:BLOG-ish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll agree with that assessment. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

But per WP:NEWSBLOG, it seems the distinction from self-published group blogs is made by 1) a professional staff, and 2) fact checking. For (1), in this case as an arts & culture blog it's understandable they're not trained as journalists (though having an editor with such established professional background would probably help for our purposes); however they do seem to be paid staff with some relevant background. For (2), they say there's a fact-checking process -- that's not gonna be possible to verify from here, but we could assess if some ratio of articles get some facts incorrect that would have been caught by basic fact-checking. So in principle, at any time, it can be falsified.

So I'd say from what you've given us, it qualifies as a news blog. Of course, since it's arts+culture, its tone is going to be opinionated and casual, so WP:RSOPINION may apply more often than not. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Checking the staff members of Popspoken.com, it seems to me that it is a group blog. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources in Lemba people

A new account, User:For the love of academia is rapidly adding unsourced and badly sourced (not necessarily all) to this article, including changing a quotation and adding a lot of unsourced. Ignoring the latter I've been looking at the sources as they currently stand, not just new ones.

The Washington Times (see its listing at WP:RSNP is used as a source for DNA[126].

An anonymous short article by the World Jewish Congress [127]] is oddly used twice for the same text "and was rebuilt on its remains."

Something called Kulanu.org[128] is used several times. It's used to source "Since the late twentieth century, there has been increased media and scholarly attention about the Lemba's claim of common descent from First Temple Judaism"[129], material in the largely unsourced Lemba people#Marriage and material about Lemba traditions by a South African pediatrician Rudo Mathivha, material about passover [130], etc. It looks to me as though there's a problem of self-sourcing here. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear Doug, the text about marriage which is visible on the current page was the initial text that I found when I made the edits, I just moved the location of it to a different subsection.

As for the source quoting Rudo Mathivha, that has been present on the page since 2007

I cannot speak on the article in regards to the World Jewish Congress, but I can only guess that the reason that it came up as an edit I made is once again due to me rearranging sections of the page under different subheadings.

Any quotes to do with haplogroup, especially Y-chromosone testing have nothing to do with me, and so claiming that I cited the Washington Times when talking about DNA is misguided at best.

Evidence of passover celebrations and a Jewish renaissance within the community has been written in several articles, with many organisations being involved, as well as photographs being taken. A quick look at the Harare Lemba Synagogue page would tell you that.

I have added plenty of sources over the edits I have given, and I am sorry that you are unhappy with them.

In your message, you have neglected to mention the citations of other works by authors who had previously been cited on this page before, such as Magdel Le Roux.

Wishing you a good day For the love of academia (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

My post is an analysis of the article as last edited (I think). No commenting on your sources or good sources, although I think you may have interpreted some of your sources. I know that most of what I wrote above has nothing to do with you except the fact that you changed a quote to, it appears, match what you think it should have said. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

In fact you have changed sourced text[131] and added unsourced, eg population, a red link to a language for which we have no article. You changed "Semitic speakers.<ref name="Parfitt," o " to"First Temple Judaism<ref name="Parfitt," Is that in one of the other sources? Doug Weller talk 15:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

scripts.com

Is scripts.com a reliable source, e.g. here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm dubious of it. It's user-generated and I can't find any indication of any editorial control. They even compare themselves to Wikipedia: Scripts.com follows the footsteps of some of the most important editor/contributor projects of the internet. Just as Wikipedia™ became the definitive word on words through the efforts of volunteers, Scripts.com follows in its footsteps to become the definitive scripts collection of the Web.[132] Schazjmd (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I see, thanks. I'm still tempted to use it for Durkin's date of birth, in the absence of anything better, as it does match up with FreeBMD and gov.uk. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Per WP:DOB: Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. <...> The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified. (bold is not in original source, added for emphasis) Schazjmd (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm 99% sure the date and place are correct, especially in view of Companies House entry. IMDb also concurs. I guess it will have to just sit on the Talk page for now. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Zamaaero

We had a discussion about reliability of Zamaaero in the past few months.

I strongly believe that this website is unreliable, and today we have another example of it, apart from ones that are already provided.

https://zamaaero.com/03/04/2024/novosti-iz-regije/prvi-objavljujemo-smanjenja-ajet-smanjuje-u-regiji/

In this article, Author is stating that AJet is discontinuing flights SJJ-BJV and SKP-BJV. However, those flights are available for purchase on the AJet's website, proving that Author is spreading nonsenses.

Further example: https://zamaaero.com/01/04/2024/novosti-iz-regije/smanjenja-beograd-tri-linije-manje-nego-prosle-godine/

This article claims that Belgrade has three new routes during NW24 and NS24, which is not true. The airport has 5 new routes (OPO, SAW, OMO, HER, RMF). PikiLuka (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

thehockeywriters.com

I recently received an inquiry on my talk page about this site. Is it a reliable source for hockey content? Or is it a self-published blog? Courtesy links:

• Home page
• Writer requirements
• Masthead

Left guide (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

As someone rather active in WikiProject Ice Hockey; personally, I believe THW to be generally reliable, but at the same time I also try to find other sources corroborating their content, if that makes any sense. They’re not at the level of record of a TSN or SportsNet, but they’ve got enough of a writing team/editorial oversight so as not to be an SPS. The Kip 00:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I took a deep dive into the website. The staff are from various places, but they maintain independence in collecting facts. One of their writers worked for CBC too. However, after reading some of the articles, some read like opinions similar to a blog, but they match closer to that of The Hockey News. Other articles are written from a neutral perspective. Overall, I would consider them to be semi-reliable. They are a good source for random hockey trivia, but for something serious, I would consider using TSN, ESPN, or Sportsnet. Conyo14 (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Is MEDRS required to trump report that Havana syndrome may be linked to Russian espionage?

A joint investigative report by 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel linked Russian GRU Unit 29155 to Havana syndrome. This report was subsequently covered by a wide array of reliable sources [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146]. Some editors are currently engaged in an edit war on the page, claiming that only medical sourcing can be used to cover the claims in the article, or in the "causes" section of the article. FailedMusician (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Some editors are currently engaged in an edit war ← would that include you would you say? I don't think this is a correct characterisation of the dispute, or this the appropriate venue: nobody is contesting these sources are reliable for what they say. This is not a MEDRS issue (that's another dispute on the page), it's more a POV/weight issue. Bon courage (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Editors in favour of inclusion in Adding the new investigative report include Endwise, Redxiv, Gtoffoletto, Thornfield Hall, Chase1635321, TinyClayMan, Running dog59, Edittlealittle, BootsED, LuckyLouie, GreenC, Machinarium and DolyaIskrina. Even Simonm223 and Slatersteven who largely opposed, agreed to inclusion. Yet you remove it twice citing WP:ONUS [147] [148]. FailedMusician (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You have your view and novel way of counting noses, and have reverted stating that consensus is required for exclusion. But that is not a matter for this noticeboard. Bon courage (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted this enormous deletion of sourced content. Does this need to go to AN/I? Geogene (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and also for a sockpuppet check against RandomCanadian, or one of those other accounts that twisted MEDRS on the lab leak article. FailedMusician (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Deleting journalistic sources discussing geopolitics because they're not MEDRS? That's something that's been done in Wikipedia before, hasn't it? Geogene (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not happening here; that's a straw man to set up MEDRS as the villain of the piece. MEDRS only applies to WP:BMI as been repeatedly said, but there are other issues with the WP:NOTBMI parts of the article, particularly on over-reliance on long runs of primary sourced material. Bon courage (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, what about WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD? Just because something is primary is not an automatic deletion. Geogene (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not 'automatic deletion', it's considered deletion. Articles need to based on secondary sources then, yes, primary ones are useful to build on that foundation. But the trouble with this article is that it has primary foundations while the (available) secondary sources are not used. We even have strong MEDRS (as has been discussed on the Talk page). Bon courage (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, or one of those other accounts that twisted MEDRS on the lab leak article ← that's niche wikiknowledge to be familiar wish. Incidentally, this[149] is an interesting non-response to a question on your user Talk page. Bon courage (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This whole issue needs the dispute resolution noticeboard. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Here are several further attempts you made at deleting the content [150] [151] [152] [153]. I realise that this doesn't belong on this noticeboard, but I'd prefer to address the MEDRS issue than be goaded into whatever it is you're doing. FailedMusician (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The MEDRS issue is another one. One would have thought in a page variously tagged for over-length, primary sourcing. etc. Actually doing something about it would be welcome! Bon courage (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Bon courage, my concern with your edits was that you were removing information that you personally stated you disagreed with, and then cited MEDRS, OR, and primary sources as the reasons why you were removing them despite consensus on the talk page towards keeping it. BootsED (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

you personally stated you disagreed with, ← I don't think so. Evidence please? Bon courage (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Several comments of yours:

• "Object to inclusion. This is just weak newsy junk. Would need some decent/respectable WP:SECONDARY coverage to be due, especially given the fringe/science aspect to this stuff. Bon courage (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)"
• And a WP:FRINGE one too. When RS says this "syndrome" probably doesn't exist we really should not be giving rolling coverage to whatever latest credulous clickbait silliness is in the news. It's like reporting Bigfoot sightings. Wikipedia needs to be a bit better than that. Bon courage (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• We would need good WP:MEDRS, not commentary pieces in dodgy or non-pertinent journals. Bon courage (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• The page is stuffed full of crap, yes. Anything insufficiency sourced needs the chop. Bon courage (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

You've made clear that you believe these sources are "weak newsy junk," the "latest credulous clickbait silliness," filled with "dodgy or non-pertinent journals" and have been using WP:MEDRS, OR and primary sources as reasons to continually remove them despite editor consensus towards keeping them. As FailedMusician stated, "The 2019 JAMA report and commentary should also have not have been deleted. They are part of the narrative of events. Calling NYtimes "unreliable" is just ridiculous. FailedMusician (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)"

So yes, I do believe you have a personal bias against certain RS that you personally disagree with. However, I will retract my accusation, as I do not believe going down this rabbit hole is worthwhile. BootsED (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the retraction. I don't know what I think about the "information" in the sources, but I have firm views on what constitutes good and bad sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Among the content you deleted, In March 2024, a joint investigation by 60 Minutes, The Insider and published claims of Russian connections through state agency GRU Unit 29155. Among the core claims were that senior members of the unit received awards and political promotions for work related to the development of non-lethal acoustic weapons; and that members of the unit have been geolocated to places around the world just before or at the time of reported incidents. How is that content MEDRS? Geogene (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That is nothing to do with MEDRS (you've been suckered into to the framing of this dispute), and this 'Insider report' is the subject of discussion the article Talk page with different editors arguing for and against inclusion. I don't think is due without decent WP:SECONDARY coverage. Bon courage (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Implies that the health symptoms were the result of "non-lethal acoustic weapons" which is a WP:FRINGE claim. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if the underlying reports are making medical claims, they need to be held to the standard of WP:MEDRS, especially when the claims they are making are extraordinary. See WP:MEDSCI, WP:MEDASSESS, and WP:MEDPOP. There is no justification to list such sources under the causes section of an article on a medical condition. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The section is titled "possible causes," of which one section is listed as "Hostile adversary attack." There is no claim that there is/is not a "true" cause of H.S. No claim is being made if the information is true or false. Wikipedia should not be in the business of deciding what is true or what is false. We merely report on what multiple RS on a topic state. Multiple RS on this topic have stated this possibility on H.S. so it is beholden on us to at least mention it in the article about H.S. The article is not solely a medical article, there is much about geopolitics on it as well. As FailedMusican stated, multiple editors were in favor of keeping and including this information. BootsED (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Multiple editors have also questioned its inclusion - however, I don't dispute that RS have reported on the 60 Minutes report, but think it should go in the chronology section, as otherwise it heavily implies that "non-lethal acoustic weapons" were responsible for the symptoms. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Can't we wait for some secondary source to provide some actual analysis about what it might mean? Bon courage (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That'd be nice. 03:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It was included in the chronology section, and it was removed claiming "would need WP:MEDRS". BootsED (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok I didn't remove it from that section? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I never claimed you did. BootsED (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This is biomedical content. We have strong secondary sources. Use those sources; don't use unreliable (primary ones). Why is this hard? Bon courage (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No. You first removed the report with a different claim [154]. After I reinstated it to the "Causes" section you deleted it from, you moved it to the Chronology section, claiming the alleged causal link to GRU needs MEDRS, even though none of the sources in the Causes section are MEDRS. It so happens to be that the highest quality MEDRS we have on the subject lists a number of possible weapons systems as Potential causes of Havana syndrome [155]. Evidently, you haven't read the sources on the topic, MEDRS or otherwise, and this discussion may need to be continued on an administrator noticeboard. FailedMusician (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, LegalSmeagolian, you just made a massive revert of the information that was previously re-added to the page. BootsED (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I explained my reasoning in the edit summary. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ludacris (tell me how you feel) to me that you are claiming that the HIGHEST QUALITY MEDRS we have is from 2022 and cites a 2020 National Academies of Sciences Standing Committee as its sole source for the claim that radio frequency whatever is the most plausible cause. There are more recent reliable sources that say otherwise. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a link to a more recent reliable source (specifically a review article) saying otherwise. FailedMusician (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00207640231208374. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hooray, an actual piece of peer-reviewed WP:SECONDARY scholarship in a quality journal has been mentioned. Hallelujah! These are the sorts of sources which need to underpin the article. Bon courage (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I am having WP:COMPETENCY concerns about a lot of editors in this space. Goodnight ya'll. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That article is usable, but it is not a full review article, as was discussed previously [156]. It certainly doesn't trump the previous review article and doesn't settle the matter. FailedMusician (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It reviews multiple pieces of literature on the subject and succinctly summarizes them. It might be a brief review article but it is a review article nonetheless, and the opinion of one editor does not trump that. Why not support an RfC on the matter? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

PMID:38146090 is a recent review article in a quality journal, and so its conclusion (that HS is just a 'health scare' and 'moral panic') is thus due. So too are the conclusions of the other recent review articles (which ranks various causes' likelihoods differently). Bon courage (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Bon courage just asked me if I edit Wikipedia with other accounts on my user talk page. This needs to go to AN/I due to these ridiculous claims. BootsED (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

To state in wikivoice that this is true? Yes you absolutely need MEDRS sources. You can't make what are medical claims using such sources.
For an attributed statement that an investigation came to this conclusion? Then it should be fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The latter would still be making a medial claim, so normally we wouldn't include such sources. Attribution isn't enough there.

This has already been discussed over at WP:FTN, but the one exception would be if there's a fringe claim within that source that other more reliable sources area addressing, WP:PARITY context in terms of proper weighting for ideas that are mentioned, etc. KoA (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Attribution is necessary for all claims, given that most MEDRS sources refrain from making definitive conclusions and acknowledge data access limits. Your removal of quotes from Relman and the New York Times article, which identifies him as "a prominent scientist with access to classified files on the cases," indicates that there is a fundamental misapprehension of the MEDRS policy's intent. FailedMusician (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You seem to assert that you have a comprehensive understanding of MEDRS policies intent, despite being a user with *checks notes* 209 edits. I am wondering how you feel comfortable asserting that. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• It depends on what exactly we say on the page. For example, an assertion in WP voice that an effect has been established would be a "health effect" per Wikipedia:Biomedical information, i.e. an WP:MEDRS covered statement. However, saying that there is a belief about the effect or saying about legal and society issues (and the most of the page is of that nature) would be covered by Wikipedia:Biomedical_information#What_is_not_biomedical_information?. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• I mentioned this elsewhere, I think; but I believe that this is a case where WP:PARITY applies. Provided the sources are being solely used to rebut lower-quality sources that themselves do not pass WP:MEDRS, I think that PARITY allows for us to use non-MEDRS. In fact, this is exactly the sort of situation PARITY was written for (ie. cranks and non-experts are making a claim that is so far from the academic consensus that it's unlikely to get any serious high-quality treatment at all.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Fortunately we have WP:MEDRS sources that support academic consensus. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Looper.com reliability

Exactly how reliable is the entertainment news site Looper.com?[157] Particularly when it comes to biographical details? I'm asking because it this edit for actress Loni Anderson's page[158] an editor put it in as a ref in regards to her being voted the Queen of the Valentine's Day Winter Formal in high school. There was another ref prior to, but I removed as it was a high school yearbook on Classmates.com and that would probably fall under WP:PRIMARY. Plus Classmates.com is user-generated. I'm just having a hard time telling if Looper is actually reliable or if it's some clickbait website that web scrapes info from elsewhere. Kcj5062 (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kcj5062: If you haven't yet done so, you may want to consult the RSN archive search for past discussions. Left guide (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Looper.com is listed as unreliable in WP:VG/S, the reason being that it is churnalism and it can be easily replaced with more reliable sources. Now, VG/S is for video games-related topics only, but the fact that it's deemed unreliable there should raise a few eyebrows. See also this now-archived discussion started by me. Spinixster (trout me!) 10:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Are Meduza and/or https://www.lentata.com/ reliable sources for "Communist pseudohistory"

See this edit:[159] the only edit by an IP. Although I can access Lentato.com I'm forbidden to access the actual source.Как успяхме да направим България от 5,5 милиона население до 9 милиона население (от 1945 до 1989 г.)? Using Chrome it's easy to translate. Doug Weller talk 10:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Meduza is generally reliable and you can find lots of other sources for the first thesis. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The whole edit should be removed. The first reference discusses repression in the Soviet Union, but denial of that repression. So it doesn't backup the details added.
The second part of that edit (the part starting Also, they deliberately underestimat) fails verification. The reference used is the post that is criticised in wikivoice, which obviously doesn't contain any of the rebuttal details in the edit. Rather than WP:OR a source should be found criticising the post.
There are many good sources out there detailing repression in the Soviet Union, these are not great and are being misused. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Meduza is a reliable source but it's a Vox-explainer-style article and there are plenty of scholarly sources about the denial of Communist-era atrocities. The Bulgarian example should be simply removed unless there are RS discussing it. Alaexis_¿question? 13:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Meduza is hardly a "generally reliable source", but rather "additional considerations apply". Given that 1st (Meduza) ref has no name of any author, I would suggest using better sources. 2nd ref in the diff is definitely not an RS. Hence, I agree with ActivelyDisinterested that the edit should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

property118.com

Is this a reliable source [160]? It is being used at Angela Rayner to support the claim that "Greater Manchester Police (GMP) says it will reinvestigate the matter", which no other source has claimed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this the investigation mentioned by other sources? e.g. The Guardian[161] for instance. I can't see any reason to use a tax planning consultation that has a sideline in news under the byline "The Landlord Crusader".
Not reliable and certainly not a high quality sources as should be used in a WP:BLP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The other sources certainly mention that GMP were going to "reconsider their original decision not to investigate." The consensus at Talk:Angela Rayner is that this does not mean they are actually investigating. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

We have a consensus at the Talk page that the content should not be added until GMP themselves have made a statement that clarifies what they are doing. But we have a single new user at the article who has insisted on re-adding it. I think this is misguided, but I certainly do wish to edit war. Some fresh eyes would be very useful there. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You may want to raise it at WP:BLPN. Certainly it appear that other reliable sources say the decision not to investigate is being reconsidered not that an investigation is currently happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it will be the second time I've raised it at WP:BLPN. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

PinkNews's reliability

PinkNews is listed as a reliable source on WP:RSP, but looking through some of their recent articles on JoJo Siwa, they've published a fair share of blatant errors. This article states that Siwa's single "Karma" was going to be released on Friday, 9 April, but April 9, 2024 is a Tuesday and the song was released today. They say in an article from a different writer that one fan pointed out that the track has similarities with the theme track to the 90s cartoon Gummy Bears without a source, also misnaming the 1990s cartoon in question (Adventures of the Gummi Bears) and seemingly getting the comparison wrong - the only comparisons I could find to any song with "gummy bear" in the title were to "I'm a Gummy Bear", which was released in 2007. benǝʇᴉɯ 16:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that getting a day of the week wrong isn't an issue, and the rest of the complaint appears to be trivia based on social media sources (TikTok/YouTube). I don't see a problem here. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think for something to be listed as green on RSP, it should have some basic fact-checking in place. While User:Benmite cites a single example, that there are multiple basic errors makes it seem likely that there was little or no oversight for that particular article. [Edit: I misread OP in my head; if it were the case that a single article is found with multiple basic errors, this statement holds.] That calls into question the entire "Culture/Celebrity" section for further scrutiny, and it also indicates we should spot-check some of their news articles too to see if they continue to merit the "generally reliable" rating. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Basic fact checking doesn't mean never makes errors... There are more than two dozen errors of the sort that Benmite is describing in the print edition of the NYT or WSJ every day. Likewise a commonly quoted anecdote in the academic community is that nobody has ever published a truly error free paper. It doesn't call anything into question, you're going off half cocked. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems like very small beans… Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

9 instead of 5 is clearly a typo, and they list the source tweet directly above so there's not even any harm done there.

The other alleged mistake is hard to judge. They could very well be accurately, if unclearly, reporting on a fan making this mistake. Loki (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Occasional typos and spelling errors are not the sort of issues that have anything to do with reliability of a publication. Silverseren^C 20:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Google Books includes AI trash

Google Books ingests low-quality AI-generated books, some of which are trained on Wikipedia itself. See "Google Books Indexes AI Trash" (April 4, 2024). -- GreenC 17:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd hope that any editor using Google Books for research would check the publisher. <edit to add> GB also hosts books that are merely collations of wikipedia articles. Schazjmd (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Neither Google Books nor Google Ngram Viewer is a Wikipedia RS. The former is only linked to as a content host. Being indiscriminate in such hosting (taking the article's assertions at face value) may or may not be seen as an advantage. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Google Ngram Viewer is used in debates about which variant of a term is more common. I myself am extremely dubious about the value of this, because by its nature it grabs a mishmash of everything, including sources we'd never use for any other purpose. XOR'easter (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Why would it be a problem that Ngram Viewer uses sources we'd never use? 99% of text on the internet is not a reliable source. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. If the point is to see just which word is more common, I don't see why we'd restrict the search space to reliable sources. Loki (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME specifically asks for prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources. XOR'easter (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

While new information about diffusion-generated content is good to be mindful of, Google Books has been (or at least, this has been my impression) a repository for sources, not to be treated as a source itself. It may be linked for convenience, but the real measure of a source is not whether someone digitized a preview for Google but what press it was published with, how it was reviewed, the training/profession of the author, etc. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• I mean, Google Books has always been an indiscriminate collection of books - it is a host, not a publisher. We can and should continue to use it as a courtesy link, but books gain their reliability (if any) from their actual publisher, not from the fact that they appear on Google Books. --Aquillion (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Google books, as with academia.edu that was discussed recently, is a host not a source and isn't reliable or unreliable. These are courtesy links for the aid of verification. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

two articles

are these two articles reliable sources?

1- written by Daniel Sarlo; the author has written several articles about religion and religious matters:

https://www.academia.edu/3590677/Was_There_Zoroastrian_Influence_on_the_Judeo_Christian_Hell

2-written by Simin Amini; the author has several articles on Zoroastrianism, and related subjects:

https://www.academia.edu/54910401/Discuss_the_question_of_Zoroastrian_influence_on_Judaism Researcher1988 (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No. The Sarlo article is coursework. It mentions The University of Toronto course "NMC 2228," which I gather is a graduate-level course on Zoroastrianism: [162]. The Amini article is titled "Discuss the question of Zoroastrian influence on Judaism," which looks like and almost certainly is an essay prompt for coursework in another class. Also, these article are from Academia.edu, and you've already gotten guidance here several days ago that you have to use caution with that site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Articles_from_Academia.edu

I suggest you review WP:SCHOLARSHIP before you ask about sources. I suggest you find a secondary source on Zoroastrianism ("a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook") instead of digging around on Academia.edu. Definitely avoid anything you can't attribute to a known, established academic. GretLomborg (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

but the authors have several articles on this subject. why they can't be considered reliable? Researcher1988 (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Because just writing a lot doesn't make a person a reliable source. XOR'easter (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

For the reasons both explicitly just stated to you, and contained in site guidelines that were linked to you. Remsense诉 01:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's why: if a student uploads 5 papers he had to write for a class on some subject to a website, does that make him a reliable source on that subject? No, because he's still just a student. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Kenya Times?

I don't think this is the same thing. Anyways, I'm wanting to use the website to write an article about an East African church leader (link). I'm not familiar with the African press, so is this website reliable? ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 00:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)