Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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


    Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

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

    Additional notes:

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

    RfC: Universe Guide

    [edit]

    The reliability of Universe Guide is:

    –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Background (Universe Guide)

    [edit]

    Universe Guide is an amateur blog about astronomy that is cited on many pages about astronomical objects. This website has been discussed at this WT:ASTRO discussion, this WP:RSN discussion, and this WT:AST discussion, and there is general consensus that it is unreliable, and due to persistent usage, it has been suggested to be deprecated or blacklisted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Survey (Universe Guide)

    [    edit]
    By the way LaundryPizza, I'm sorry for not initiating the RfC myself. Just got problems a few days ago. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Unicorn Riot reliability

    [    edit]

    Is this website a RS?[3] Mhorg (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    I'd be cautious. Their "About Us" makes no mention of editors, fact-checking, or even who their writers are. It's a nonprofit set up to report "underrepresented stories" and present "alternative perspectives"; The New Yorker quotes one of the founders as saying they have a "reputation as a clearing house for data dumps on far-right groups".[4] Schazjmd (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Just noticed we have an article on them. And I also see that a number of articles do cite them.[5] Schazjmd (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    They're certainly biased to the left, but they're one of the few organizations that has on-the-ground coverage of social movements/protests in the United States and engages in investigative reporting of the far right. They have both an editorial independence policy and a correction policy. I would presume they publish under the Unicorn Riot byline rather than individual names because they operate as a collective. So yes, be cautious and attribute their reporting in-text. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    A paper describing them as an "anonymous hacker and surveillance collective"[6].
    A paper describing them as "activist journalism"[7].
    They may have aspects that would lead us to treat them as a primary source. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Some news reporting is primary, some is not. We can't say the whole outlet is primary just because part of their work is invesitgative/on-the-ground reporting. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Biased but reliable. Their investigations are solid and used by others. They report on topics not covered by more mainstream sources. If other more reliable sources exist for a claim, those might take precedence; if not, this source is fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    If the source is widely agreed to be super biased, how could it be reliable? Seems to be Non-RS to me. These fringe left and right so called publications, which are just PR sites (think Breitbart) are not useful for us to reach NPOV, all we get is false balance. These far right and left websites are just laughable. Unicorn riot (as I type and the first time I have ever visited or heard of the site) is covering what appears to be a 4 person rally to ban astroturf. This is not what we need at wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Please review WP:RSBIAS. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    If something isn't notable (a 4 person rally), we'll not cover it, so this is irrelevant. UR is in no way comparable to Breitbart; Breitbart is (super)biased plus unreliable while UR is just biased. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    My inclination is to agree with voorts and BFB here: Unicorn Riot is reliable for facts but biased. Loki (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    RFC on The South African

    [    edit]

    Which of the following best describes the reliability of The South African?

    Survey (The South African)

    [    edit]

    Discussion (The South African)

    [    edit]

    RFC Jewish Chronicle

    [    edit]

    The reliability of the Jewish Chronicle is:

    RFCbefore, Previous RFC Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Note (Jewish Chronicle)

    [    edit]

    Existing RSP entry is green with the following commentary:

    "There is consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting. There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics."

    Editors may wish to comment on these issues specifically. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Just a reminder but it's not technically possible to deprecate a source for a specific are of content and also a deprecated source is not more unreliable than an unreliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Well, there are clear wording differences between WP:GUNREL and WP:DEPREC, beyond the availability of technical means for the latter. Andreas JN466 12:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I'm just summarising Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable. WP:DEPREC itself is a short summary of WP:DEPRECATE, but this is better discuss in the discussion section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Survey (Jewish Chronicle)

    [    edit]
    IPSO lamented the paper's lack of cooperation with complaints in very strong terms The Committee expressed significant concerns about the newspaper’s handling of this complaint. The newspaper had failed, on a number of occasions, to answer questions put to it by IPSO and it was regrettable the newspaper’s responses had been delayed. The Committee considered that the publication’s conduct during IPSO’s investigation was unacceptable. Given the difficulty of obtaining corrections from the paper in cases where individuals are named, it is likely a large amount of false information has also been published where nobody is named, so the possibility of libel actions is eliminated, and the chance of IPSO cases is significantly reduced.
    The 2020 change of ownership, meaning nobody actually knows who owns the paper, combined with the false stories on Gaza, suggest we should not use the paper in any capacity until the question of ownership is clarified.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Just in addition to this, I feel, having read others' comments, a date of 2010 for the beginning of the qualification on reliability regarding political topics may also be valid, given that marked the period where Stephen Pollard took over. I would certainly consider extending it back that far in terms of BLP. However, the real collapse in standards occurred from 2015.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    1-Unknown owners who are likely right-wing ideologues;
    2-Publication of fabricated stories supporting Israeli premier Netanyahu's narratives;
    3-Allowance of an unknown freelance journalist who came "out of nowhere" to write these fabricated stories under a pseudonym and with a falsified resume
    4-The fired freelance journalist then making death threats to an Israeli reporter due to the revealing of their identity
    5-The resignation of the newspaper's most prominent columnists who have also stated that the JC's editorial line had become "sensationalist" and "unbalanced". Makeandtoss (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    These issues all relate to the period from 2020 to now. If it’s technically possible to deprecate for a specific timeframe only, is it right to assume you would argue for deprecating for this period specifically? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I can continue mentioning how the JC was bought by right-wing owners in 2008 and how the newspaper played a prominent role in slandering pro-Palestinian voices as antisemitic including UK Labor Party former leader Jeremy Corbyn, and how it promoted the new antisemitism concept which included anti-Zionism. Also notable that JC had too many IPO violations since 2018. [13] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    There was no change of ownership in 2008. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    My bad, editorship* as mentioned in MEE article. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    1. Are there any other sources deprecated because of the suspected political leanings of their owners? If not, are we going to start doing this? I might have some suggestions.
    2 & 3. are the points with substance to my mind. However, the JC have retracted the stories and cut ties with the writer, admitted the mistake and said they are reviewing their procedures for dealing with freelance journalists. This is substantially the same procedure as the Guardian announced faced with a very similar situation.
    4. It's baffling that you think that this has bearing on the Jewish Chronicle's reliability.
    5. Columnists resigning is not a criterion of reliability or unreliability. Nor, for that matter, is being "unbalanced". Samuelshraga (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    There really is a world of difference between
    and
    Do please read them both and compare. Andreas JN466 08:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I agree re no.4. Re no.5, though, I think columnists resigning can be an indicator of unreliability if their reasons for resigning relate to criteria of reliability. Whereas some of the resigners (e.g. John Ware) have only mentioned a dislike of the editor's politics, most have mentioned being uncomfortable with the lack of transparency about ownership and many have expressed other reliability concerns, as the links already on this page show. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Objectively speaking, they produce far more false reports than other sources. Including sources we deprecate, like the Daily Mail.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    It wasn't the JC in particular it was the British press in general. Restricting the Option 3 to 2015 onwards leaves earlier JC journalism able to be used if people familiar with the history of the paper consider it reliable. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    To clarify then, Davesaurus, you think the British press in general should be option 3 after 2015? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I would just answer this point simply by reiterating the quote by subject matter expert Brian Cathcart: the publication of falsehoods has been a characteristic of the paper’s journalism for years. The problem is not bias, though the source is biased like every newspaper, it is consistent and sustained inaccuracy used to support its biases.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    RSN and RSP are a good way to skew article bias by designating sources supporting certain viewpoints as unreliable so as to remove them from articles in contentious areas. Judging publications individually is naïve in such an environment because editors will unconsciously create different standards for their favoured sources. We need to consciously ensure we're holding all sources in the Israel-Palestine conflict area to the same standard. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    @Chess:The times has 12 IPSO rulings against it and 5 for its website, which is shared with the Sunday Times, since 2018, publishing 312 editions a year. The JC has 6 for the jc.com, which have not been counted up to now, and 12 for its paper edition. This is over just 52 yearly editions.
    To suggest these numbers are similar is a clear misrepresentation of the facts, given the probability of a the JC publishing an actionable falsehood in a given edition is AT LEAST 6 times higher (we do not know how many of the website stories originated in the Sunday Times). This disparity is further compounded by the fact that the JC is around a third of the length of the times, and so produces many fewer articles. A generous calculation would be that a JC story is ten times more likely to be punished by IPSO than the Times.
    It is also clear from the rulings that the Times' corrections are spread over a range of topics, whereas all of the JC's false stories relate to the British left, Muslims and Palestine. This is more a campaign of disinformation by the JC rather than good faith errors. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    For reference, evidence of unreliability comprises points like the following:
    Andreas JN466 09:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    If we're deprecating publications for a single freelancer fabricating stories let's get rid of the New York Times because of Jayson Blair and Judith Miller. Additionally, the New York Times also has anonymous owners as it's publicly traded. We only ban reliable sources based on their ownership if the ownership is negatively influencing the publication. Please point me to the cases where a source was banned because its owner was unknown, because asserting this is a unique situation because the paper has taken a turn to the far right means this is because of the views of the Jewish Chronicle.
    This is a very high standard for the Jewish Chronicle that we do not hold other reliable sources to. The New York Times has had journalists fabricate content. The result of their investigation was to fire the journalist. This is the same thing the Jewish Chronicle did,[18] so explain why you're not holding the Jewish Chronicle to a different standard when you say they failed to conduct a proper investigation after the fabrication scandal. Or say that the New York Times is unreliable as well.
    IPSO complaints are not a way to quantify unreliability. Complaints would only quantify reliability if they all represented the same flaw and were comparable across an entire industry, but IPSO complaints can be made for a variety of reasons and WP:GREL publications like The Guardian opt out of them. Your math shows that the Jewish Chronicle is an order of magnitude worse than the Daily Mail and that The Times is (5+8)/(6+11)=76% as unreliable as the Daily Mail. If you believed the Jewish Chronicle was 10x worse than the Daily Mail you wouldn't have !voted for "Option 2 in general". If the number of IPSO complaints had any statistical validity The Times would be at WP:MREL or below.
    RSP is very quickly devolving into a method to enforce groupthink, because declaring a source as unreliable or just WP:MREL means one can effectively prevent its viewpoints from being presented on Wikipedia. Additionally, because the standard for reliable sources is de facto "does it agree with other reliable sources?", we end up with a ratchet effect that makes it harder to prove a source is reliable as the number of reliable sources that source agrees with goes down. This eventually leads to a corpus of sources that uniformly agree on what the truth is.
    The only way to prevent selective exclusion of sources is to consciously question whether our standards are objective. You can't handwave this burden away when it's been brought up repeatedly by other editors. The reason why I !voted Option 1 isn't because I am disputing most of your claims, it's because you cannot show why similar evidence would prove unreliability for other publications. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Completely agree. Andre🚐 15:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    a) Most people are not suggesting deprecation and b) It's not just about rogue freelancers so lose the strawmen. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    !voters aren't suggesting deprecation because the Jewish Chronicle is obviously more reliable than the Daily Mail. But the IPSO argument implies that the JC is 10x worse than the Daily Mail. Both cannot be true at once. I'm refuting the IPSO complaint counters with a reduction to absurdity that demonstrates why the number of IPSO complaints isn't a meaningful metric to evaluate sources on.
    Rejecting IPSO means the rogue freelancer story is the only evidence of false information being published by the source. You have provided no other specific cases.
    Columnists resigning due to changes in ownership/political slant can only prove bias on the part of the JC. As the editnotice you're supposed to see when editing this page says, bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution.
    The objective standard we should be following is whether a source can be used for citing false information on Wikipedia. We rank and categorize sources to prevent false information from entering the encyclopedia. You can write as much as you want, but if you can't give specific examples of false information, then you haven't shown the source is unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    All of the upheld IPSO cases found problems with accuracy – typically incendiary, false claims ascribing words to people they had not actually written or said. This sort of thing is apt to cause BLP problems here. I don't understand why you think such inaccuracies are irrelevant for our purposes, or do not qualify as "false information" (and please go a bit more lightly on the bold). Andreas JN466 20:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Reliable sources also have substantiated IPSO complaints. Our dispute is over whether counting the number is acceptable, because you haven't bothered analyzing their specifics. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    These IPSO rulings seem quite similar to me in nature (in one case, practically identical).
    You are proposing that the number of upheld IPSO rulings against a publication (proven inaccuracies, misrepresentations or libels) should be irrelevant to us. That is hardly sensible.
    Your previous post was a textbook example of circular reasoning – you said, "the Jewish Chronicle is obviously more reliable than the Daily Mail. But the IPSO argument implies that the JC is 10x worse than the Daily Mail. Both cannot be true at once. You start with the assumption that the JC is better than the Daily Mail, so if it collects ten times more adverse IPSO rulings per article than the Daily Mail, then that proves IPSO rulings don't matter. Absurd indeed – but not in the way you mean.
    The fact that these IPSO rulings generally occurred in a single topic area makes it all the more important to take note of the risk we would take by hosting the JC's truth claims unvetted and unfiltered by other, more reliable publications, here in our BLPs and other articles in that topic area. If the claim is important, another more reliable publication will pick it up, and we can cite that. That is responsible sourcing for an encyclopedia, given the substantial concerns about the JC voiced in the press. Andreas JN466 19:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    You start with the assumption that the JC is better than the Daily Mail, so if it collects ten times more adverse IPSO rulings per article than the Daily Mail, then that proves IPSO rulings don't matter. Absurd indeed – but not in the way you mean.
    I'm pointing out your absurd double standard where you argue that the Jewish Chronicle is statistically worse than the Daily Mail, but then only !vote for Option 2. It makes it obvious that your !vote doesn't follow from your stated reasoning. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    @Chess Well, have a look what the NYT did when it discovered one of their reporters was guilty of fabrications:
    What we got from the JC is this nothingburger:
    To claim that this is in any way equivalent to what happened at the NYT is risible. You don't have to take my word for it, because we have journalists pointing this shortfall out in the mainstream press.
    • "Thinnest form of contrition" (Times of Israel)
    • "Though Wallis Simons apologised to readers, he offered no explanation for how the deception occurred. Just an assurance that standards will be tightened. This will not do." (Prospect Magazine).
    The concerns about ownership etc. are voiced in the British and Israeli mainstream press, across the political spectrum.
    Using the Jewish Chronicle for WP:A/I/PIA coverage after this episode is not my idea of due diligence. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." If they sort their operation out, we can always revisit. Regards, Andreas JN466 16:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    What would writing a longer statement with a more detailed apology do? Elon Perry lied about his identity and his sources. He was caught within two months. The "transparent and exhaustive reporting" of the New York Times is full of florid prose about Blair's travel habits, counselling, and personal problems as he was a full-time employee of the New York Times.
    I don't think the Jewish Chronicle would have any of that information for a freelancer, so most of that article couldn't be written even if the JC wanted to. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Background (Jewish Chronicle)

    [    edit]

    Discussion (Jewish Chronicle)

    [    edit]
    Thanks. I should have linked those in my comment for others' sake. That's what my comment refers to as inadequate, to say the least. Instead, they are 'sitting on the story', not reporting perhaps among the most important news, in the outlet's history. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    • Comment These additional qualfications add nothing, since they already apply to every other news publication.
    For all green-lighted news media, they are considered generally reliable for news and additional considerations apply for all other information they publish. See News organizations: "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). [However] [e]ditorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
    Also, per Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."
    No one has pointed out how this source has caused damage or even that there has been any discussion in articles about specific claims linked to it.
    TFD (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I have no doubt we should do a better job of making the policies cabining news clear everywhere (including on the perennial sources page) -- indeed, one of the reasons I think that page may be unclear (despite the extensive introductory hand-wringing), is it likely suggests in its format, news and other types of sources are the same (we should probably breakout news outlets from others, although I don't want us to then suggest all other sources are the same--perhaps sectioning would be better). But "editing notes" is what we should collectively give, and it only makes sense on Wikipedia that there would be collective editing notes, especially concerning its most plainly used but also difficult to use source, news. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Continuing the discussion with User:Andrevan from above: As User:Alanscottwalker already mentioned to you, WP:SOURCE explicitly points out that one of the four aspects of a source that can affect reliability is the publisher and its reputation. An anonymous owner creates the impression of having something to hide. This has impacted the reputation of the Jewish Chronicle, as evidenced by the media reports linked above. --Andreas JN466 22:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Yes. Anonymous can have no reputation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    If such standard were applied to all sources, we'd have to mark as unreliable any source for whom we don't know all the board members. The sources you provided do list a number of people. A silent partner in any venture is not unusual or a sign of unreliability. The Companies House listing for Jewish Chronicle Media Ltd also suggests no change in its status from a private limited company. Instead, the only change that appeared to have been made was to remove Gibb as a person with significant control, replaced by Jonathan Kandel, a former tax lawyer whose LinkedIn page says he now works as a senior consultant for the Starwood Capital Group, an international private investment firm.....The Jewish Chronicle’s ownership structure, in which several key figures remain anonymous.... Since 2020, the only shareholder and director was Robbie Gibb, a former Downing Street comms director. But he was not bankrolling the loss-making paper, which according to its latest accounts required a loan of £3.5 million. In March, the paper announced it would be becoming a charitable trust. Gibb recently resigned as director, replaced by the Labour peer Lord Austin, Jonathan Kandel, a prominent lawyer, and Joseph Dweck, a senior rabbi. The shareholding was split up, too. But the people ultimately responsible for The JC’s debts remain unknown. Andre🚐 22:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    We should be concerned when sources say it is a concern. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    This is, again, a misread of what it means by "publisher," it means the outlet, not the ownership of the outlet; ownership isn't mentioned. If you find an article that was published in the Jewish Chronicle, that was published by the Jewish Chronicle, and it will be reputable or not based on what we decide here, but nowhere is that extended to mean the reliability of the shareholders of the company. Andre🚐 22:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    No you don't understand publisher. The publication is the Jewish Chronicle, either it has a separate publisher or it does not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    As I just said, it is called "Jewish Chronicle Media Ltd." The fact that we don't know all the shareholders is not relevant. I think we're going around in circles so let's agree to disagree. Andre🚐 22:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    The ownership does matter. It has to matter to the publisher. But more specifically, it matters to the sources that have taken issue with it. As Jayen already pointed out, this problem was not identified by Wikipedians, it was identified by sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    The sources also say, Not all of the contributors have resigned. “For me, this incident is not reason enough to give up on a paper that’s been a powerful and essential voice for our Jewish community for 180 years,” says Naomi Greenaway, deputy editor of the Telegraph Magazine and Jewish Chronicle columnist. “But I have a lot of respect for the journalists who have resigned, and I’m glad it’s triggered The Jewish Chronicle to interrogate their editing processes. The shame is that for a paper that does give a platform to those on all sides of the political spectrum, these resignations will ironically mean it loses that balance on the Left. “From my experience, they are a tiny team, juggling a huge amount on a shoestring budget and generally the calibre of content punches way above what would be expected from their resources. But they’ve dropped the ball and they know they have massive lessons to learn from it.”....“The @JewishChron has cut all ties with the freelancer in question and his work has now been removed from our website. Readers can be assured that stronger internal procedures are being implemented. Andre🚐 22:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I don't know what you are responding to. That does not address publisher. It also continues a vagueness, apparently she, an editor, has no idea what went on and what the fixes are or what lessons are learned. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    The question at hand is whether the publisher, Jewish Chronicle Media Ltd, and its associated publication, have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That quote substantiates that in fact, its reputation may still be intact, though that is for editors here to determine. As to whether the company contains, among the named individuals, some anonymous individuals AFAIK is not something discussed anywhere in wiki-policy. Andre🚐 22:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    No. It does not. She is not a reliable source for her own employer in such a matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    It had a reputation for fact-checking, up until circa 2009, when Pollard took over, it was bankrupted by libel cases, and then taken over. The JC of today is no longer the JC of yester-century, but the shell of a long-cherished brand, and the point of this RFC is to make that very distinction in terms of source quality. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Has any RS reported it was bankrupted by its four libel cases or was this speculation? Lot of newspapers suffered financially in the same period, as lots of the RS commentary on this case notes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    An interesting quote from John Ware, part of the consortium that acquired The Jewish Chronicle in 2020, appeared this weekend in The Times. Ware told The Times:

    • "I, and some others, repeatedly asked to be told who the new funders were. We were told that wouldn’t be possible. I was assured that they were politically mainstream and I trusted those assurances because I trusted who gave them. I didn’t want the paper to fold so I allowed my name to be used, having been told it would help. I had zero managerial, financial or editorial influence, control or input, nor ever have had. It was just a name."

    Ware stopped writing for The Jewish Chronicle in February 2024, due to concerns over the publication's new editorial line under Wallis Simons, and defected to the Jewish News. --Andreas JN466 13:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    That's indeed a damning quote, but note his resignation is not due to reliability issues just editorial political position: “To be frank, I became unhappy with the JC’s political drift. Whilst it was doing new and important stuff on extremism, I felt too often it glossed over the fragmentation of Israeli society, which is accelerating and which really matters to the Jewish community here and should matter everywhere. It’s a very big and developing story.” BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    The anonymous consortium member quoted here a few months ago – who said some remarkably similar things to what Ware has now been saying on the record to The Times – also declared the JC's editor was "behaving like a political activist, not a journalist", especially in social media, and that coverage of Israel had become a case of "my country, right or wrong".
    This may or may not have been a different member of the consortium – after all, the sources are saying several of its members eventually became uneasy about their involvement – but it is clear that even within the consortium that was ostensibly owning and running the JC, concerns arose whether the JC was about propaganda or journalism.
    John Woodcock, Baron Walney, another consortium member, also confirmed to The Times that he has had no involvement whatsoever in any oversight structures for the JC. Andreas JN466 16:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Lee Harpin, a former senior reporter at the JC, left the paper in 2021 and a few days ago published a scathing piece about "Leaving the Jewish Chronicle" on his Substack. Alan Rusbridger quotes Harpin as saying that after the new owners took over, he was told they wanted more views "well to the right of the Tory party". --Andreas JN466 10:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    I would be interested to hear a response, particularly if they think these legal cases aren't that bad? Andromedean (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I haven't looked into all of these claims, some seem like fair concerns, but a few points -
    We have to keep in mind that JC voluntarily submits to IPSO regulation, which provides a highly accessible venue for complaints, giving them leverage to extract apologies or small payouts. Other outlets like The Guardian opt out of IPSO regulation, so claims about libel have to go to real court, which is much less accessible and which involves a much stricter legal standard of libel.
    JC also receives more scrutiny than most sources due to its controversial positions. If AP or Reuters made a mistake like writing banned rather than rejected, in an otherwise uncontroversial report, we'd never hear about it because noone would care. I'm not convinced that JC makes more factual errors than most news outlets. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    However, since then the following editors...The Kip...have given the JC a clean bill of health.
    I voted virtually the exact same way as ActivelyDisinterested, Bobfrombrockley, Bluethricecreamman, LokiTheLiar, and Springee (and not far off from Selfstudier and Jayen466), which was that it was reliable up to a certain point (hence why full-scale deprecation would be a problem) and not so reliable afterwards, especially for ARBPIA. That is very clearly not option 1 akin to the others listed. What in the world do you mean by I've "given it a clean bill of health??" The Kip (contribs) 03:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    @Andromedean, forgot to ping in initial response. The Kip (contribs) 03:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Fair enough, not option 1 across the board for you, but that brings me back to how difficult it will be for an assessor to make a judgement with all the exceptions to this and that. I also believe that Option 2 could be used with almost any publication on non-political issues. However, it's mainly geopolitics and national politics which dominates references to the JC, and is the motivation behind many of the other controversies. Typically editors are advised to find other sources where they exist in such cases. Andromedean (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    @Andromedean, I primarily responded to the latest Eylon Perry debacle and the IPSO rulings since these were the main arguments in the Background section. I'll review the links you've shared and respond here (and possibly amend my !vote). Alaexis¿question? 07:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    @Andromedean, I've looked at the lawsuits and rulings section of the wikipedia article. First of all, as you probably know England has rather peculiar laws on defamation which put the burden of proof on the defendant and (imho) have been abused by a lot of unsavoury characters. Whatever you think about the merits of this law, this means that the same article would not necessarily be considered libelous if it were published elsewhere where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
    Second, most of the section and most of your examples have to do with IPSO rulings which is again, the system working as it should resulting in the newspaper removing content (amongst other remedies). I agree that they published a number of articles that turned out to be incorrect but since they took appropriate measures following the decision of the regulator, I don't think we need to downgrade them. This definitely confirms their bias, but that's hardly news for anyone here.
    Regarding some of the specific examples you've mentioned.
    • Publishing details of the family members of the defendant without valid justification has no bearing on the reliability.
    • falsely accusing a country of repeatedly vowing to wipe Jews off the face of the earth - it was in an opinion column which we would not use for statements of fact per WP:RSEDITORIAL
    • reporting false links to terrorist activity - if you're referring to Interpal then it's not obviously false. In spite of the court ruling in the UK this organisation seems to be still designated as a terrorist organisation by the US, Australia and Canada.
    Alaexis¿question? 09:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    • This finding by Independent Press Standards Organisation is concerning: "Therefore, at the time of publication, the allegations against the complainant remained unproven. By reporting these allegations as fact, rather than identifying them as unproven claims made by multiple sources, the [Jewish Chronicle] articles failed to distinguish between comment, conjecture, and fact". There are about 12 other complaints of inaccuracy in which IPSO ruled against JC.VR (Please ping on reply) 23:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Institute for the Study of War

    [    edit]

    Institute for the Study of War is described on its own WP page as being an ultra-hawkish neoconservative NGO. It has been used as source by on 2024 Allenby Bridge shooting, in a report that is mostly cited to Israeli military and figures tweets at the end. Tagging @The Mountain of Eden: as the inserter of the material. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Bias is not unreliability. Is there any evidence of unreliability? In the Institute’s talk page, the nearest claim to that is The Intercept (a biased reliable source) describing it as “of dubious objectivity”. The content is the NYT using it as a source, which is in fact evidence of use by others. I don’t know about its reporting on Israel, but having followed the war in Syria very closely I can confidently say ISW was one of the most reliable sources for facts about that conflict. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Yes, uncritically and exclusively reporting on claims propagated by the Israeli military, an institution known for long-term disinformation, makes it pretty unreliable for the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Can you present some evidence of this? What do RSs say about its reliability? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    ISW's Ukraine coverage has been very good, lots of good technical analysis without much polemic. Can't speak for I/P. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Obviously, an institution directly involved in a war is not a reliable source for information about the war due to conflict of interest concerns. Also, there has been many documented incidents in the past year about Israeli disinformation and misinformation, including the decapitated babies lie, to cite one example, which was first made by an IDF spokesperson, propagated by Netanyahu and eventually parroted by Biden.

    Makeandtoss (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    How is the ISW directly involved? Why should we be particularly concerned about this specific think tank passing on IDF disinformation? Has any source suggested it has? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I was referring to the institution of the Israeli military which is undeniably unreliable. Propagating their claims and critically and exclusively by ISW makes it also unreliable. Not to mention it’s Hawkish neoconservative background and content which was described to be unreliable by the Intercept. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Why are you saying ISW propagate Israeli claims uncritically and exclusively? The report you link does have a bunch of footnotes to IDF claims, but it also has footnotes to Iranian claims.
    Intercept didn't say unreliable; they said "dubious objectivity". But that seems to be outweighed by the large number of RSs (including e.g. Al-Jazeera, that isn't pro-Israel) that seem to treat it with respect. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Because as you said the footnotes are mostly IDF tweets, which is clearly very lousy research. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I would be wary of content that is found only on the websites of such NGOs and has not made it into any mainstream publication. Andreas JN466 13:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Examples of use by RSs: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]
    These all relate to Ukraine, so refining the search to include Israel and exclude Ukraine: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I agree the Institute is well cited by RS, and usually without caveat or criticism. Still, I question why we should go directly to such a source rather than a mainstream media source presenting information from them with attribution, as your examples do. A thinktank like that is more like a primary source than a secondary source, or rather something intermediate between the two.
    Highlighting content from such a source that has not been deemed worthy of mention by any secondary sources risks straying into OR territory. YMMV. Andreas JN466 13:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    That's a good point, and I often ponder about that with the niche topics I'm interested in where the underreporting from mainstream sources can be frustrating and so we turn to second tier sources. I definitely agree that we shouldn't use it instead of better sources, but to determine it a bad source I'd need to see a more persuasive case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I think they're very much still a secondary source (in relation to most topics). It sounds like you're getting at them being a WP:BIASED secondary source? I think that's fairly typical of NGOs though - most are reliable for facts but have political agendas of some sort. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I don't see why a thinktank would be a primary source. I think it's a secondary source by definition, since it performs analysis of publicly available data.
    Of course, not each and every study by a thinktank would get quoted by other media, so I don't see why it would be necessary to only quote other references that quote the thinktank.
    I think the only question that we need to be concerned with would be: does this thinktank have a record of providing unreliale inforation? From what I am seeing so far in this discussion, the answer is "no", which means it should be listed as a WP:RS. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    If the best thing that can be said about a source is that they don't have a negative reputation, then that sounds at best WP:MREL. Some more context on what exactly is being supported would be helpful. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    In this case we have evidence of positive reputation, per WP:USEBYOTHERS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    In this case, ISW is being used in the article linked by the OP as a secondary source for Kata'ib Hezbollah claims. That seems exactly appropriate to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    @The Mountain of Eden: Thinktanks are often financed by, or closely allied with, one of the stakeholders in the events at issue, be it a government or an industry (tobacco, arms, etc.). That colours their reporting, and it distinguishes them from press sources that are – at least nominally – independent of government and industry. (That is why it is important to know who owns or finances an outlet, which is a key factor in the case in the preceding section.)
    Example: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, also cited in the article under discussion (it was actually mislabeled in the reference as The Institute for the Study of War) is, according to Haaretz, "known for its ties in the U.S. and Israeli government".
    I think we would agree that government statements are primary sources, and newspaper reports are secondary sources. So I hope we can also agree that a thinktank with close ties to a government is somewhere in between an independent secondary source and a primary source.
    Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (my emphasis). Andreas JN466 14:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Employees of thinktanks are not government employees. Ties could be receiving grant money. By that same logic, public universities have ties to governments, as they are partially funded by the government. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Well, universities traditionally have strong rules about academic freedom, and for good reason. Thinktanks do not have them. If you are working for a thinktank financed by the tobacco or oil industry, you are far more restrained in terms of what to research and publish than if you work for a university.
    There are levels of academic freedom, and they are generally greater in universities than in thinktanks. Of course there are states that constrain academic freedom in universities, but that generally causes visible controversy. Not so in thinktanks – if you are not a good fit for their agenda, they won't hire you or get rid of you, and that is considered fair enough. A thinktank has a mission; it is not a university. Andreas JN466 15:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Bias has to be shown. Mere connection is not sufficient. So far, I have not seen anything in this discussion saying that the Institute for the Study of War puts out tainted studies. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Well, you were speaking in general terms above:
    • I don't see why a thinktank would be a primary source. I think it's a secondary source by definition, since it performs analysis of publicly available data.
    So I answered in general terms. Speaking generally, there is a difference between an advocacy organisation like a thinktank, and a purely scholarly source, even though both may analyse publicly available data.
    Speaking of The Institute for the Study of Wars, one of the sources in our article says:
    The recent creation of the Institute for the Study of War47 is the most direct example of the strategic potential of an advocacy tank in this case. The initiative was taken in response to the 2007 stagnation in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. A group of companies from the military sector make up the core founders and donors of the ISW, which deploys an aggressive strategy reminiscent of the defunct PNAC:
    • Direct links with political leaders thanks to the make-up of the board
    • Storytelling practices, producing, for example, the Surge: the untold story, a feature documentary on the importance of increasing the dispatch of troops to Iraq
    • Use of all possible communication techniques: rhetoric, slogans
    • Conferences and events attended by high-ranking politicians and military leaders
    • Agreements with the media
    The PNAC was a neocon thinktank. So I think, in general, there may be good reasons to be wary of direct recourse to thinktanks. Media and, where available, scholarly sources provide a worthwhile filter. Andreas JN466 15:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    This discussion has been a little bit cross-purpose. There's no doubt ISW, like all think tanks and advocacy organisations - but probably like all sources period - has an agenda. The issue that concerns this noticeboard is whether that agenda leads it to be unreliable. To make that case we'd need to provide some evidence of unreliability, and there has been no evidence provided so far. The question of primary and secondary is a different question again. The primary sources for the involvement of KH in this incident are those in footnotes 6-7 of the ISW report: the official Telegram channel of KH and the Telegram of a KH spokesperson. ISW, passing on the contents of those Telegram channels, is a secondary source. The question for this noticeboard is can we trust ISW to be reporting them accurately. I see no reason not to. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I think you solved the issue well by finding a secondary source and adding a reference to that. The combined references – one Arab, one from the US – satisfy WP:DUE in a way that the thinktank reference alone did not. This also helps increase confidence in reliability. Andreas JN466 12:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    WP:USEBYOTHERS is a strong evidence of reliability. "Dubious objectivity" is about bias, not reliability. Btw they do a reasonably good job of covering the Russian-Ukrainian war and their materials are used extensively there as well. Alaexis¿question? 09:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    That is only one indicator, which clarifies: "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims." There has been no other RS connecting the 2024 Allenby Bridge shooting with Iraq's Kata'eb Hezbollah; therefore, this is a minority claim as well from an unreliable source, with dubious objectivity per the Intercept. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Are you referring to their endorsement of the attack? I see that now there is one more source for that so this became a bit of a moot point probably. Alaexis¿question? 07:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    WP:USEBYOTHERS is categorically not strong evidence of reliability... It is the weakest evidence of reliability which can be provided. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Is this Retracted LA Magazine Article a reliable source?

    [    edit]

    Looking for comments on the reliability of this source: https://web.archive.org/web/20200526081806/https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/shen-yun-trump/ It is an article from LA Magazine written by Samuel Braslow titled: "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties". It was retracted by the magazine due to a defamation lawsuit as, according to this article on the case, it contained false claims.

    It looks like there have been several discussions about whether to keep this source and the quotations attributed to it in several pages.

    See the discussions here which have been going on for about a year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shen_Yun#Retracted_LA_Mag_article and apparently the "centralized discussion" from a year ago here which didn't seem to end in consensus from what I could read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Li_Hongzhi#Braslow_piece_in_Los_Angeles_Magazine

    In all cases though it seems to me the majority of editors involved in these discussions believe it should be removed, there seems to be no clear consensus from what I can tell, as there are other editors arguing that the source and the quotes should be kept.

    My concern is that, from what I understand both of those pages are about living persons, and the quotations are contentious (based on the edit history of both pages and the discussions) and the source seems (at least to me and some other editors) to be a poor source given the reasons above.

    Personally, I don't think retracted articles that have been subjects of lawsuits for containing false information constitute reliable sources, and I'm confused as to why some other editors insist on keeping it up. But I am a new editor, and perhaps there is some rule I'm not aware of. So I'd like to know what everyone else thinks, and if I'm wrong maybe I can learn something new about how wikipedia works. I don't want to misrepresent the other side of the argument, but from my understanding, the argument is that wikipedia is not censored or that legal threats shouldn't be rewarded so the article should stay.

    For some context, below is the content included in the articles that uses the braslow article as a source:

    The Shen Yun article says:

    Los Angeles–based investigative reporter Samuel Braslow described Shen Yun's background in March 2020: "Both Shen Yun and Epoch Times are funded and operated by members of Falun Gong, a controversial spiritual group that was banned by China's government in 1999 [...] Falun Gong melds traditional Taoist principles with occasionally bizarre pronouncements from its Chinese-born founder and leader, Li Hongzhi. Among other pronouncements, Li has claimed that aliens started invading human minds in the beginning of the 20th century, leading to mass corruption and the invention of computers. He has also denounced feminism and homosexuality and claimed he can walk through walls and levitate. But the central tenet of the group's wide-ranging belief system is its fierce opposition to communism. In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences. Over the years Shen Yun and Epoch Times, while nominally separate organizations, have operated in tandem in Falun Gong's ongoing PR campaign against the Chinese government, taking directions from Li." Editor Chris Jennewein of MyNewsLA wrote that Los Angeles Magazine was sued for defamation in May 2020 by the Epoch Times, referring to Braslow's news report. Los Angeles Magazine pulled the piece from their website in July, as ordered by federal judge George H. Wu, and published a retraction notice in the September 2020 issue of the magazine.

    The "Li Hongzhi" article where the "centralized discussion" was says:

    According to a March 2020 report by Samuel Braslow published in Los Angeles Magazine:

    In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences. Over the years Shen Yun and Epoch Times, while nominally separate organizations, have operated in tandem in Falun Gong’s ongoing PR campaign against the Chinese government, taking directions from Li. Despite its conservative agenda, Epoch Times took pains until recently to avoid wading into partisan U.S. politics. That all changed in June 2015 after Donald Trump descended on a golden escalator to announce his presidential candidacy, proclaiming that he "beat China all the time". In Trump, Falun Gong saw more than just an ally—it saw a savior. As a former Epoch Times editor told NBC News, the group’s leaders "believe that Trump was sent by heaven to destroy the communist party".

    (Los Angeles Magazine retracted Braslow's article in September 2020 after Falun Gong filed a defamation lawsuit in May.) Blue nutcracker (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Sidenote: I think RFC generally refers to a very structured process, see WP:RFC. And in general, if you do start an RFC, it should only be after discussion on here has failed. And arguably, an RFC for a single magazine article for a single wikipedia dispute on this page is not the best place to start it. You may want to start it on the talk page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    • In general, a retraction is still a retraction, and unless there is clear information that the article was true and that the Shen Yun/Epoch Times did truly shady stuff and/or overpowered with money, we shouldn't use the article.
    Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Looking for LA Mag retraction, they have retracted other articles before for poor reporting practices as well. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    First of all, this editor is leaving out that our Epoch Times article in fact reports on the curious case of this retraction (Shen_Yun#History).
    Second, just about all of the above quote can be cited to any number of other sources that are today readily available. It would just necessitate light modification. Media sources regarding Falun Gong and its extensions Shen Yun and the Epoch Times (among others) are very easy to find now.
    Third, the fact that Falun Gong/Shen Yun went after Los Angeles Magazine for its reporting would seem notable to me. And I'm not alone: Here's for example a news report on it. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I agree. If there is something whose sole source is this retracted article then it probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Alaexis¿question? 09:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    If elements of the quote can be cited to other sources, that would probably be ideal. My initial impression is that it's a bit of a wall of text, and sources an additional step removed may aid in summarising the most pertinent elements. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Content shouldn't be solely sourced to a retracted article, and I don't think it's a good idea to be second guessing why an article was retracted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Woops, thanks Bluethricecreamman for sharing about the RFC procedure. I just saw several sections titled like that and thought it was simply a title others were using! To answer bloodofox point, if you can cite the above quotes to any number of other reliable sources readily available, then there seems to be no point in arguing in favor of using this retracted article as a source. But more importantly bloodofox, can you tell us why you think this retracted article from a magazine with apparently a reputation of poor reporting practices is a reliable source? Blue nutcracker (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I covered it all above. Other editors should be aware that Blue nutcracker is yet another WP:SPA focused on Falun Gong-aligned edits. The account's first edit was August 24 on the Shen Yun article ([43]) . :bloodofox: (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Can you stop the personal attacks and focus on the topic please? Blue nutcracker (talk)
    The statement "WP:SPA focused on Falun Gong-aligned edits" is an objectively true statement. Other editors absolutely should be informed and aware that they are interacting with an account with these properties. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    The guideline WP:CONTEXTMATTERS should be followed. The guideline tells us to examine the context. In this case, the context is that Los Angeles Magazine was accused of slander and they crumpled in the face of expensive court proceedings initiated by an aggressive, lawsuit-prone group: the Falun Gong. The magazine opted for a settlement which was cheaper and less trouble than defending their integrity. Afterward, the magazine erased all articles that they had published about Falun Gong, not just the 2020 piece by Braslow. For instance, they published a piece about Shen Yun in 2019 titled "Just How Big Is Shen Yun’s Marketing Budget?" This piece is now stricken from the magazine website, despite the fact that it was not challenged by Falun Gong as slander.
    The freelance journalist Samuel Braslow is his own reliable source, cited on Wikipedia more than a dozen times. He performed the research, and he documented his findings in the article. His findings should stand because of context: everything he wrote about Falun Gong and Shen Yun is true and correct according to scholarly writings by Heather Kavan or James R. Lewis (both cited in the Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi articles), and similar investigative news pieces such as NBC News items "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times" from 2019, and "How the conspiracy-fueled Epoch Times went mainstream and made millions" from 2023. The supposed "slander" written by Braslow is completely true. Nobody credible accused him of journalistic malpractice.
    The facts of the slander case and magazine retraction made the news on its own. Local Los Angeles news outlet mynewsla.com wrote two pieces: "Epoch Times Files Slander Suit Against Los Angeles Magazine" and "Judge Orders Los Angeles Magazine to Remove Article from Website". This means that the lawsuit and retraction can be described on Wikipedia. Mynewsla.com described the supposed slander as including the accusation that Falun Gong members "had furtively pumped nearly $10 million in [Facebook] ads through a hidden network of fake accounts and pages", which fits quite well with what is described in NBC News's investigative piece from 2019. Context matters. The context here is that Braslow's work is legitimate, relevant, useful and objectively accurate. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Sean.hoyland Why don't you tell us what you think about this issue? Do you believe this article is a reliable source? Why or why not? I'd be glad to hear your opinion. Binksternet when you say: "In this case, the context is that Los Angeles Magazine was accused of slander and they crumpled in the face of expensive court proceedings initiated by an aggressive, lawsuit-prone group: the Falun Gong. The magazine opted for a settlement which was cheaper and less trouble than defending their integrity." did you read this somewhere? It'd be great if you shared the source here so we could all take a look. If everything braslow wrote about is completely true according to the other sources you named, and they are reliable sources, why not use those other sources instead? I agree that the lawsuit and retraction are notable and can be mentioned in the article. But I am still not convinced that this article is a reliable source and we should be quoting from it in the manner we are doing in the article. Blue nutcracker (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    What I think about this issue is that the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct's prohibition against "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view" is far more important than a question about a source. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I don't know what you're talking about. Other uninvolved editors in this noticeboard seem to have agreed so far that the source isn't reliable and shouldn't be used like it is in the article. As several of us have said repeatedly, if you have other reliable sources to support the content, just use those instead of this one. Would you, Binksternet and bloodofox be open to the following compromise: we can replace the above quotes with something like:
    "Investigative journalist Samuel Braslow wrote an article titled: "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties"[14]. Editor Chris Jennewein of MyNewsLA wrote that Los Angeles Magazine was sued for defamation in May 2020 by the Epoch Times, referring to Braslow's news report.[22] Los Angeles Magazine pulled the piece from their website in July, as ordered by federal judge George H. Wu, and published a retraction notice in the September 2020 issue of the magazine.[23][24]"
    The above is essentially one new sentence, mentioning the braslow article, followed by what's already in the article, which I assume everyone agrees with, describing the lawsuit and retraction. This would address your concerns of not omitting mention of the article, it's lawsuit and its retraction, but doesn't quote from article or use it as a source. Can you tell us your thoughts on this? Blue nutcracker (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Braslow's investigation brought new information to the topic; he did not stop at summarizing the situation as previously published. We would be remiss not to cite facts from his article. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    The LA Mag article contains glaring factual errors, such as saying that Epoch Times was founded by Li, but it was founded by John Tang [44]. Also there is no evidence that LA Mag retracted due to financial reasons.
    Brawslow's quote as currently cited mostly concerns a living person. Even if we consider Braslow's piece as a self-published source after retraction by LA Mag, per WP:RS/SPS, we should Never use self-published sources as independent sources about other living people, let alone the factual errors. Thomas Meng (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Editors should be aware that this is another WP:SPA that produces only Falun Gong-aligned edits in these spaces (the account's first substantial edit was in 2020 on the Falun Gong page, citing policy and stating that "associating Falun Gong with the Epoch Times is inappropriate"). This account has a long history of arguing for every Falun Gong-approved position one can imagine and will not make an edit that reads as remotely critical of the new religious movement. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Epoch Times was started by John Tang, certainly. But Tang was answering the needs of his messiah, Li Hongzhi. Braslow's assertion that Li started Epoch Times connects the dots between messiah and acolyte, with Braslow assuming that Li was the motive force, and Tang was the agent. Not an unlikely or far-fetched scenario.
    It's obvious that LA Mag folded because the case was too much trouble and too much money. The case was settled before any of the facts were examined. It never went to jury trial. Note that Australian scholar Heather Kavan has described Falun Gong as extremely coercive, using street violence, personally targeted scare tactics, and engaging frequently in lawsuits. It's not unlikely that LA Mag publishers were subject to personal threats in addition to the lawsuit. They could have stood their ground, defending Braslow and the magazine's own integrity, and this path would have had a good chance of succeeding, because the article's facts are in line with previously published descriptions of Falun Gong behavior. But this path would have cost a lot of money.
    Which living person was negatively affected by Braslow's article? It can't be Li Hongzhi, who has been described in similar terms by many other writers. And Braslow did not name any other Falun Gong adherents. Instead, Braslow described the Shen Yun organization and its Falun Gong DNA. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Since you brought it up: actually RSes overwhelmingly describe Falun Gong as a strictly peaceful spiritual practice, including the U.S. Congress and this Pulitzer-Prize-winning series of stories that illustrate how in the face of torture, forced school expulsion, etc. Falun Gong practitioners peacefully appealed for an end to the persecution by the CCP (see last article in series, Death Trap). Scholars similarly describe Falun Gong as peaceful, including David Ownby, Benjamin Penny, and Andrew Junker. There is not one single instance where Falun Gong practitioners resorted to violent means to counteract persecution.
    Regarding Braslow: actually per WP:BLPSPS, it's not about whether a living person is affected negatively or not; rather, it's about Wikipedia's quality standard for sources about livign persons in general—it doens't allow self-published sources. Thomas Meng (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Note the account's insistence on Falun Gong-approved terms like "spiritual practice" and not what WP:RS overwhelmingly use: "new religious movement". Tread with caution regarding how this account presents or summarizes sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    You would appear to be using this noticeboard to advocate for Falun Gong, please keep your commentary contained to what is relevant to wikipedia and abstain from promoting or advocating for Falun Gong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    My first thought is that since the article got retracted, it’s not a “published” article anymore for Wikipedia’s purposes since it requires “reliable, published sources.” WP: RS.
    I thus don’t know if it’s necessary to analyze the possible reasons behind the retraction. There could be many considerations like financial, reputation, or actual inaccuracies. Additionally, as reported by Mynewsla.com, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction enjoining the magazine from publishing the article. Defamation cases for public figures and entities usually require a higher threshold, such as actual malice. So if we were to get into all the reasons, we would have to analyze all possibilities and considerations, including why the magazine agreed to removing it even though they could recover litigation costs if they won. Thus my take is that absent a report by a reliable source stating the real reason for the retraction to be one unrelated to factual accuracy, we shouldn’t get into the context and should just treat it as an unpublished source. 23impartial (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    The problem with that stance is that Wikipedia would be letting Falun Gong game the system to remove negative publicity. They should not be allowed to decide which sources must be suppressed. Braslow's investigation was legitimate and relevant to the narrative about Falun Gong. This is a case where we must push back against Falun Gong's manipulation, and accept the word of an honest career journalist. Binksternet (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I think your interpretation of BLP is wrong (or at least as its expressed in this edit summary is [45]) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Thank you for your feedback. Do you think this LA Magazine article is a reliable source? and can you tell us why or why not? Looking forward to your input! Blue nutcracker (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    You appear to be mocking and ignoring my input. I think the context is worth examining and examining your claims about the applicability of BLP is part of that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Not at all, I assumed you posted here because you were interested in participating in the discussion and was inviting you to give us your take on it. Blue nutcracker (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I am participating and giving my take... You appear to be mocking and ignoring my contribution thus far. I think that you are overplaying the BLP angle, I also think that the concerns raised about FG effectively gaming the system are legitimate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    As you may have already noticed, it has been really hard to keep this thread on topic (The topic is: Is this Retracted LA Magazine Article a reliable source?), and it's starting to devolve into walls of texts littered with accusations, and I'm trying my best to hear everyone's opinions to see if we can have some sort of consensus or reach a compromise. So while I appreciate your contributions so far, how can I help count your contribution toward a consensus if you haven't provided it so far? I am just confused at this point. Thank you for providing your input so far, but if you don't have a particular answer to "Is this Retracted LA Magazine Article a reliable source?", I won't be able to continue this particular conversation we are having. Otherwise it will be very hard for any other editors in the noticeboard who may want to participate to catch up with the thread Blue nutcracker (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    None of this is off topic, FG apparently gaming the system is part of the topic. In that context I lean towards some sort of useful reliability. What is your opinion on whether or not FG is gaming our system? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Summary of the Discussion so far

    [    edit]

    To make it easier for anybody who might still be interested in contributing to the discussion, and to aid in determining consensus, I will attempt to summarize the discussion so far. If you feel I have misrepresented your take, please feel free to clarify.

    Editors from the Notice Board

    From Bluethricecreamman, Alaexis, ActivelyDisinterested, NadVolum and 23impartial, it seems that the general sentiment is that the article is not a reliable source as it was retracted by the magazine.

    Alpha3031 seems to believe the quotes are too long and more sources are necessary, but I am not sure if that means we should not use it as a source.

    Editors from the Shen Yun Talk Page

    Is a reliable source: From :bloodofox: and Binksternet, the general sentiment is that there appear to be other sources readily available that support the claims in the retracted article.

    Binksternet has provided two articles from reporter Brandy Zadrozny of NBC News that appear to contain similar claims:

    https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/epoch-times-falun-gong-growth-rcna111373

    Is not a reliable source: From Thomas Meng and I, the article is not a reliable source because it was retracted by the magazine as a result of a lawsuit for containing false information according to this article on the case and the fact that the article is no longer publicly available in LA Mag website.

    Thomas Meng has provided some evidence that the article actually contains false information. To cite Thomas Meng: "The LA Mag article contains glaring factual errors, such as saying that Epoch Times was founded by Li, but it was founded by John Tang [46]"

    Editors who's contribution is currently missing or unclear

    From what I can tell: Sean.hoyland and Horse Eye's Back have yet to provide input on whether the article is a reliable source. I appreciate your interest in the thread so far and it would be helpful for us to have your input. I hope this summary makes it easier for you to see where you might fit in the discussion so far.

    Suggested Compromises

    So far I have suggested the following compromise, I quote:

    we can replace the above quotes with something like:

    "Investigative journalist Samuel Braslow wrote an article titled: "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties"[14]. Editor Chris Jennewein of MyNewsLA wrote that Los Angeles Magazine was sued for defamation in May 2020 by the Epoch Times, referring to Braslow's news report.[22] Los Angeles Magazine pulled the piece from their website in July, as ordered by federal judge George H. Wu, and published a retraction notice in the September 2020 issue of the magazine.[23][24]"

    The above is essentially one new sentence, mentioning the braslow article, followed by what's already in the article, which I assume everyone agrees with, describing the lawsuit and retraction. This would address your concerns of not omitting mention of the article, it's lawsuit and its retraction, but doesn't quote from article or use it as a source.''

    If you agree with this compromise, or if you have other ideas please let us know.

    Where to go from here

    Given that these threads get archived in 5 days and it's been almost 5 days, I would like to know:

    Based on the above, do we have consensus on the article not being a reliable source?

    If not, should we remove the contentious material while we continue the discussion as per WP:BLPREMOVE?

    Also, once the thread gets archived, where should we continue the discussion? The Shen Yun talk page? The "centralized" discussion in the Li Hongzhi talk page? Or is there some other avenue we could use? Thank you everyone for your interest and continued participation so far. Blue nutcracker (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    "appear to contain similar claims" — we really need a crackdown on these Falun Gong-aligned WP:SPAs. There are two unabashed examples right here. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Is the Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media reliable?

    [    edit]

    There's a dispute on the reliability of this journal here. The journal is apparently peer-reviewed, and I don't see signs that speak against general reliability. Input is welcome. Cortador (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    A note from reading the discussion, although it might be original research to look into the reliability of a source it's not WP:OR as that only applies to article content. Editor should look into and question the reliability of apparently reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I'd say this is analysis, as dismissing a claim bases on another source a source cites means diverging from the conclusion the first source came to. Cortador (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Analysis of sources is also allowed, as I've said in my comment below editors aren't as authoritive as academic sources but that doesn't mean that they can't evaluate the reliability of source - including critiquing it's use of sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    The journal seems reliable, that doesn't guarantee that the article is reliable but it's a strong indicator that it is. Although The Daily Beast isn't considered a great source for Wikipedia content external sources do not have to follow Wikipedia's policies. So the article writers who are academics with backgrounds in the area, and the people who peer reviewed the article (who I would expect to also have an academic background in the area) thought the source reliable enough for it's purpose in their article. However at the same time we should always be cautious of source washing, bad sources don't become good sources just by repetition.
    Personally I don't see the details as overly contentious, but as with all things involved in the American culture war nothing is simple. Is the source reliable? Probably yes. But this is a contentious topic in a BLP article so it wouldn't hurt to find something else. There are quite a few reliable media sources stating the same as well as other academic sources I'm sure. Also given the content already has a couple of references does it need another? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I think there is also a question of weight. Why should this source be included? The source was originally added to support the label "right wing" in the opening sentence. Unless there is a concern about the current sourcing, why would this additional source be needed? The same source was added later to support that someone had called Pool "extreme right". Is this a characterization that we should give weight to? Why is this specific paper being used? In the talk page discussion the paper was described as high quality but it's it? Lots of low quality papers are also published. How would we decide which papers are which? If this paper did a comprehensive study of Pool's statements and then reached this conclusion with explanation I think it would be of more value than when a paper is included seemingly because it supports a label an editor wanted to include. Including an academic paper to support the papers primary conclusions is far different than including the paper for an incidental claim made by the authors. This is especially true if the overall conclusion of the paper wouldn't change if the authors removed the quoted phrase. Springee (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    On How would we decide which papers are which? it can be useful to see if and how often the paper has been cited by others. This has been citing but not to any great extent.
    On the issue of "extreme right" labels can be used but should be widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. So if this is the only source using the "extreme" label it shouldn't be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    That's not relevant for general reliability - the source was originally removed for being a supposed "garbage source". Cortador (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    It seems relevant for the reliability of the source for the claim in question. Springee (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Then it should have been removed giving a better reason. Cortador (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    All I can say is that I was not the editor who removed the source, and that I would not have classified it as garbage. This doesn't change my comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    The earlier comment by ActivelyDisinterested, we should always be cautious of source washing, bad sources don't become good sources just by repetition seems relevant. I am always cautious about the use of academic research for content which is not the explicit result of the research.
    In this particular instance, the political categorisation of the article subject is an assumption of the academic paper, not an outcome, result or conclusion of it; carrying no greater reliability or weight (both terms plain English) than the source which the paper references. In which case, we should likewise reference that source, not the academic paper. Rotary Engine talk 23:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Determining to include a claim like that in your publication based on another source is research. The DB article doesn't contain that exact statement; it is something the paper concludes from its content. Cortador (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    That sentence shouldn't be read in isolation from the rest of my comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I'm reminded of a different discussion where some outlandish figures were sourced to a historian, they weren't from the historian but rather were in a quote the historian then refuted as being outlandish. This is similar to points better explained by Nil Einne below. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Completely uninvolved in the dispute but decidedly COI as someone who has published in JQDDM. In the world of quantitative and computational social science, it has a good reputation. It provides a rare outlet for quantitative description, in contrast to a lot of social science journals that want splashy causal results. Because of that dynamic, a lot of the best data-based evidence doesn't get published because it doesn't lend to such a causal claim or, on the other end, it pushes researchers to publish statistically dodgy causal claims in order to get a paper accepted somewhere. So this exists as a place to publish bodies of evidence about a domain of digital media both for its own sake and for other people to use in their causal studies. In other words, it's a pretty conservative approach to scholarship that uses peer review to check data, methods, and descriptive statistical claims, and that outright rejects any paper that makes a causal claim. It would be expected to see new evidence and new claims based on that evidence, but it would be strange to see anything especially controversial come out of that publication.
    But all that is whether it's generally reliable (the question in the heading). Looking at the particular claim, it's used for a "right-wing" label for Tim Pool. The paper, on a quick scan, doesn't look to be producing a list of people who are right-wing but rather include Tim Pool in its dataset among its right-wing sources imported from MBFC. Whether MBFC or Daily Beast (which is cited as part of the literature review), this is fundamentally a question of what to do when a detail in a generally reliable source comes from sources Wikipedia prefers not to cite directly. Usually, AFAIK, we defer to the reputation of the academic journals and involved peer review as the site of reliability. As an aside, while we don't allow citing MBFC directly [for good reason], there are hundreds of peer reviewed journal articles which do so (as well as its peers like Ad Fontes, NewsGuard, AllSides, etc.). Any study that isn't producing such a bias rating but rather wants to study differences in groups of media producers/consumers or the content of stories therein needs some ready-to-hand metric, and MBFC, et al. provide that. A while back I started an essay along the lines of "Deep down, nearly all research on media bias comes down to someone just watching and deciding" (alternately titled "media bias charts all kind of suck, actually"). I digress. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    I'm mostly in agreement with Rhododendrites. The point of RS is that we trust them to do their job right and ensure the claims they make are adequately supported. This includes deciding which sources they themselves trust as being sufficient to make claims. I'm unconvinced we should generally be second guessing these decisions. There will be some exceptions e.g. when there is substantial new information from when the RS we're using was published about the source they seem to be relying on but generally.

    An important point is that since we don't expect RS to cite their sources generally, it becomes problematic when effectively a lot of the time we're trusting source A to have made the right decision to trust source X just because they didn't tell us they trusted source X; but not source B because they they told us they trusted source X. Especially since a lot of the time source which tell us their sources are better than sources which don't. (Although I'd acknowledge peer-reviewed primary research which would cite their sources may not be better than secondary sources like media reports which often don't.) And for a media report, I don't think it's even always accurate to assume that just because they link to some other source it's their only source. After all the stock answer when someone complains an RS is wrong because they didn't they didn't cite where the info came from is that we don't require it.

    That said, I think it is important we distinguish between sources which have decided a claim originating elsewhere is correct/accurate and a source which is simply reporting it happened. So the wording the RS uses is important, especially for a media report. If an RS says "it's been confirmed" or simply makes a claim in their voice, then this surely means the RS has decided the claim is correct even if they link to the Daily Mail. By comparison, if a source says "according to the Daily Mail" or "the Daily Mail reported", this doesn't mean they've decided the claim/s in the Daily Mail are accurate just something worth of reporting. In the latter case, it's still generally fine to reject the info outright. With the former IMO we should normally not do so. Note IMO the same principle applies when it comes to anonymous sources. If some media reports something from an anonymous source as simply something an anonymous source told them, I think we have to be careful about including it. If it media organisation is clearly accepting the anonymous source as accurate or correct, that's a different thing.

    Talk:Kevin Sydney#Morph is not confirmed to be Non-binary is IMO a very recent example of the application of trusting the RS. Gizmodo said "Empire Magazine, it was also confirmed". As I said in the discussion, as Gizmodo seems to be a clear RS (WP:RSPS), I don't think we actually need to worry that much about what was said in Empire Magazine. As it turns out, Gizmodo's decision is IMO fair enough since it seems Empire Magazine got the info from the people creating the source. Yes they didn't quote exactly what was said or by who for the part in question, but I think we should be trusting Gizmodo was right to feel that when Empire Magazine speaking with those two people, this means the info came from one or both of them, and their summary was accurate.

    Note importantly I originally said Empire Magazine was probably an WP:RS but assuming it's the publication in our article, I'm actually starting to wonder. Or at least for reviews which this isn't. And to be fair, since the problems are they might be too beholden to large media companies and skew their coverage in their favour; it doesn't seem whether a character is non-binary is the thing we'd have to worry about. I mean the whole point is the info came from those who created the show. Either way though, I don't think Empire Magazine possibly not being an RS means Gizmodo's statement should be in doubt.

    To be clear, I'm not saying we should never consider the originating source or what it said when an RS has decided to trust it. I gave the earlier example of where new info suggests the originating source is in far more doubt than it might have been when the RS decided to trust it. Besides that, if the claim made doesn't seem to even be supported by the originating source or what it the originating source says seems to be quite different from what the RS says than I think yeah perhaps the RS cannot be trusted. Although even this needs to be applied with care e.g. could there be multiple editions, if it's a very long source has the person read carefully? (A lot of the time, a full text search might not be enough given the various wordings that might be used unless the RS directly quoted the originating source but the quote is no where.) And as the Morph example IMO illustrates it can be frustrating when someone insists the claim isn't in the originating source or for some other reason isn't supported but when you actually check out the sources their claims don't add up.

    Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Yes. Reliable. Others have spoken at length. But, we rely on researchers who reliably publish to look at all kinds of things that we could not publish without their research. For our purposes, that's what they exist for. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Help confirm about book review by Dr "Philip Lewis"

    [    edit]
    • Online publisher of the book review: The Center for Muslim - Christian Studies OXFORD
    • Book reviewed: Patel, Youshaa. The Muslim Difference: Defining the Line between Believers and Unbelievers from Early Islam to the Present
    • Reviewer: Dr. Philip Lewis.
    • Google search: 'Dr "Philip Lewis" Bradford University' suggests Dr. Lewis was lecturer or lectured at Bradford University. 1
    If this is him https://www.montgomerytrust.org.uk/book-a-lecturer/lecturer-profiles/dr-philip-lewis/ he is retired. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Yes that seems to be. Bookku (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    In general, unless there is significant evidence saying otherwise, a source is probably reliable.
    Please just WP:BOLDLY do the draft.
    If the source isn't self-published or a blog or it's in red in WP:RSP, its probably good enough until someone throws a ruckus in your talkspace. You should not worry about getting approval for every source. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Many thanks.
    I suppose book reviews by academics of peer academic are positively helpful in achieving balance we expect in confirming a source as reliable sources. Bookku (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Also Reviewer Yahya Birt @ muslimviews.co.za

    [    edit]

    Please also help confirm whether following review article @ muslimviews.co.za can be used as RS.

    Bookku (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Neurotree

    [edit]

    Is Neurotree a reliable source? I have come across it used to support the statement Leal comes from a long line of researchers that can be traced back from mentor to mentor all the way to Sir Isaac Newton in L. Gary Leal. There was a previous discussion here, but no conclusion. On the one hand it is contributed to by volunteers, but on the other hand the Wikipedia article suggests that some published sources have gone into the project. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    That it's maintained by volunteers would usually make me lean no, but the multiple journals/publications/studies/etc it's been cited in (per the lead at the Neurotree article) feels like enough to pass WP:UBO, thereby making it reliable. The Kip (contribs) 18:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    UBO wouldn't override SELFPUB, so we would still want assurances of some sort of editorial process. Though, I'm not sure people would consider any of this academic genealogy stuff all that contentious (of course, I could be wrong) so it could be sufficient to support these claims regardless. Then again, it could be argued that it might be undue weight, but again I don't really see the harm. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    as someone in a neuro-adjacent field, I think its fine to fill in the gap and has enough ubiquity we should be able to use it. Agree with Kip. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    No. It is not reliable for us. We aren't qualified academic researchers, we rely on qualified academic researchers who reliably publish to look at things like this database and other information. And only when they do, we cite their publication for their analysis of it, not the database. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    The Jerusalem Post

    [    edit]

    In the past month the Jerusalem Post has repeatedly propagated a false claim in its articles several times, calling the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, "Hezbollah-run," despite it not being affiliated with them and the fact that it is headed by an independent minister. [47] [48] [49].

    It is worth noting that this is the same newspaper that propagated the false claim last year that a dead Palestinian child was a doll, which, although it retracted and apologized for, puts into question its fact-checking processes. [50] For example, on 12 October 2023, it published an article that it had confirmed seeing evidence for babies had been burnt and decapitated during the Kfar Aza massacre, that is still online with no retraction despite being debunked. Also, in 2020, Reuters revealed that the Jerusalem Post allowed an online deepfake to write bylines smearing a Palestinian couple over their activism. [51]

    The JP is being used extensively in articles related to the unfolding war on Lebanon, such as in 23 September 2024 Lebanon strikes, where it has been used 11 times. Their reporting on the ongoing escalation seems to heavily propagate Israeli military figures and claims. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Also see Talk:Gaza genocide#ICJ case delay sought by South Africa where JP has propagated and doubled down on what appears to be a fabrication.Selfstudier (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    At this point unclear. Andre🚐 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Hezbollah is de facto in control of Lebanon and runs much of the hospitals in southern Lebanon. This is the Jerusalem Post showing its bias that we're all aware of.
    It's worth noting that most news publications didn't remove their coverage blaming Israel for the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion despite it being debunked as well.[52] Newspapers typically get stuff wrong during wars due to the nature of modern information warfare. Has the Jerusalem Post been unreliable beyond the normal standards for the area? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Often, it doesn't matter tho because you can usually find a better source for anything they publish. Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I agree with the question Chess is asking. More to the point, are there any reliable sources that question whether JPost is reliable? Andre🚐 16:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    This is a good criterion. When there is a broad range of reliable sources pointing out that there is a problem with the reliability and journalistic standards of a publication, then we should take note of that. Andreas JN466 16:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    FWIW, I had a look what, if anything, there is on the Jerusalem Post. I found the following:
    The last one is somewhat concerning but not so concerning that I would say we shouldn't cite the Post.
    We do however need to be aware that at present, according to Reporters Without Borders, "Disinformation campaigns and repressive laws have multiplied in Israel." (Israel country report.) Andreas JN466 16:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    The Jerusalem Post wasn't involved in the deepfakes. They received an email from someone claiming to be a student at the University of Birmingham. Newspapers are not experts on state-of-the-art AI technology and I don't see how they'd foresee a scam that was literally impossible 5 years ago. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I don't like this criterion. Assuming that because there's a disagreement between reliable sources, one of those sources is no longer reliable is what promotes groupthink. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Hezbollah is a part of the current Lebanese government and is known for its influence on the Lebanese politics in general (some have called it "the most powerful single political movement in Lebanon").
    So you can't definitely say that the ministry is *not* Hezbollah-controlled just because it's currently headed by a minister from another party. Having said that, if this is the only source that claims this, we definitely shouldn't use this characterisation on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if anyone has suggested to do it. Alaexis¿question? 20:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    MassLive

    [    edit]

    Is MassLive [53] reliable? I am unable to find a defined fact-checking policy anywhere or anything that can help me determine its overall reliability, but they are owned by Advance Publications which also owns Wired, a reliable source as per WP:RSP. Jurta talk/he/they 19:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    MassLive is the website of The Republican, so I'd assume so. Seems like a fairly standard city/regional paper. The Kip (contribs) 20:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    According to WP:RSP, "Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology", so I wouldn't assume that Wired is reliable for all types of information. I would thus not assume that MassLive is reliable because they're both owned by the same company. Based on the company's profile, I would say that MassLive is reliable for local events and issues. 23impartial (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Of course, should've been obvious two websites with different topic coverages wouldn't share the same mutual reliability. I figured the relation would've been worth mentioning, though. Jurta talk/he/they 13:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Yes, absolutely. It is important to consider the relation 23impartial (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Japan Forward

    [    edit]

    Seeking opinions on the reliability of Japan Forward, a publication by the Japanese newspaper Sankei Shimbun.

    My own analysis: I suspect the source is unreliable for politics, society, history, and economics.

    • Open editorializing and downplaying of Japanese war crimes [54][55][56][57]
      • To be clear, I think there's a need for skeptical conversations about the extent of Japanese war crimes, but it's grossly inappropriate to editorialize and take "us vs. them" perspectives whilst doing so. The analysis should be detatched and not be made explicitly persuasive.
    • Editorializing on other topics as well [58][59]
    • Open nationalist bent: "We aim to reveal the true face of Japan to non-Japanese speakers in areas ranging from politics and economics to culture and society, actively reaching out to show the rest of the world the diversity of Japanese perspectives and the international efforts undertaken by Japanese people, corporations, and groups." ([60])

    The source also discusses more neutral and trivial things like sports and entertainment; I don't have strong opinions on whether those articles are reliable. They seem fine. seefooddiet (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    For news, if it looks like an editorial, then you can probably treat it as WP:RSOPINION. A publication that fails to distinguish the two would probably be questionable, there doesn't need to be a discussion here to challenge and remove it where it seems appropriate, though from what I can see about half of current use seem to be for sport. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I'd argue the source falls under WP:QUESTIONABLE. J. Mark Ramseyer ([61]) has been widely rejected outside of Japan. That's just one example; the opinions in these articles are consistently considered fringe on contentious topics. seefooddiet (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    vcoins.com seems to be plagiarism from wikipedia itself

    [    edit]

    On the Edict of Milan page, in the final paragraph in the Text section vcoins.com is linked to as a source. However, looking at the source, it says the exact same thing as the wikipedia page. Indeed, the entire vcoins article is taken from wikipedia, and the writings on wikipedia predate the article. I cannot find any earlier publications of this article from vcoins from other sources, so the entire thing must be plagiarized. Looking at other articles on the website, even from other authors, shows that the articles were simply taken from wikipedia. This entire site does not look particularly repubtable, and should probably not be used as a source on wikipedia. ChromiumEarth (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Such sources are covered in general by WP:CIRCULAR, and so can be removed. The content was previously tag as {{citation needed}}, and someone tried to fix that with this source[62]. A good faith edit, but one that didn't evaluate the source very well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Are these sources appropriate for a private limited company specialising in Fintech?

    [    edit]

    Do these sources meet all 4 of the criteria to be considered for a private limited company: in-depth, reliable, secondary and strictly independent of the subject?

    Which?

    Best prepaid travel money cards 2024 Discover which are the best prepaid currency cards to save money on your trip

    https://www.which.co.uk/money/credit-cards-and-loans/credit-cards/prepaid-euro-and-dollar-card-reviews-ag0Bt7D7bxKL

    Finextra

    Currensea smashes crowdfunding target

    Travel debit card Currensea has raised over £1.7m from 760 investors in just four hours on crowdfunding platform Seedrs.

    https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/44400/currensea-smashes-crowdfunding-target?utm_medium=newsflash&utm_source=2024-7-2&member=81820

    Fintech Finance

    Travel Debit Card Currensea Smashes Crowdfunding Target in Just Four Hours as It Raises Over £1.7m on Seedrs

    https://ffnews.com/newsarticle/funding/travel-debit-card-currensea-smashes-crowdfunding-target-in-just-four-hours-as-it-raises-over-1-7m-on-seedrs/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20Currensea%20raised%20over,a%20total%20of%20%C2%A311m.

    City AM

    Fintech advised by former Amazon and Visa executives to launch travel card

    https://www.cityam.com/fintech-advised-by-former-amazon-and-visa-executives-to-launch-travel-card/

    https://www.cityam.com/london-fintech-currensea-launches-product-for-small-businesses/

    Electronic Payments International

    Travel debit card Currensea raises over £1.7m on Seedrs

    Currensea smashes its crowdfunding target in just four hours raising the company's value to £28.5m

    https://www.electronicpaymentsinternational.com/news/travel-debit-card-currensea-raises-over-1-7m-on-seedrs/

    Yahoo Finance!

    Travel debit card Currensea raises over £1.7m on Seedrs

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/travel-debit-card-currensea-raises-091509093.html

    Pymnts

    Currensea on Offering the Ability to Decouple From Banks While Giving Back

    https://www.pymnts.com/next-gen-debit/2022/currensea-offers-ability-decouple-banks-while-giving-back SarahHunnings24 (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    That source isn't Yahoo Finance, it's an article re-listed by them. Cortador (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Funding announcements are usually presumed routine and trivial. See WP:CORPROUTINE, and the rest of the CORP guideline. Also yeah, the Yahoo article is literally the same article as the Electronic Payments International one, it even says so at the bottom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I wouldn't say it's in-depth coverage. Alaexis¿question? 20:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Raksha-anirbeda

    [    edit]

    This source seems suspicious.

    Claim: "The missile officially entered operational service in September 2023, as the world's longest range and most powerful extant ICBM system." in the article "RS-28 Sarmat".[1]

    Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    The source is kinda rubbish but it also doesn't actually say it's the longest range. The closest thing it comes to saying most powerful not in the headline is that it has a an unmatched payload capacity. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    References

    1. ^ Mahajan, Neeraj (2023-09-06). "Satan-II: The Deadliest Nuclear Missile in the World". raksha-anirveda.com. Retrieved 2024-05-27.


    Blocking Yahoo Finance and MSN so the actual articles have to be cited

    [edit]

    I regularly come across articles that cite Yahoo Finance or MSN as sources, whereas those are actually just articles from other outlets they host. Citation tools like Citer also generate citations citing Yahoo Finance/MSN and won't detect the actual outlet, which is often just presented as a logo i.e. not detectable as plain text. I think both sites should be blocked as sources, not because they are inherently bad/unreliable, but to have editors cite whatever articles they host directly. Cortador (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Yahoo Finance, at least, does publish original articles, such as https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wall-street-fears-lower-than-anticipated-iphone-demand-as-shipping-times-shrink-202345884.html and https://finance.yahoo.com/news/super-micro-computer-stock-plunges-on-report-of-doj-probe-185516211.html to pick two recent examples.
    Also what do you mean by blocked as sources (like what method of blocking)? I've encountered older articles where the MSN or Yahoo source is the best URL to provide, even if the reference should probably the original source as the work= and Yahoo/MSN as the via=? Skynxnex (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I wasn't aware that Yahoo Finance had original content. This may be the first original article I've ever seen from then. I suggested blacklisting them as a source, but if they do original reporting, that won't be an option. Cortador (talk) 05:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    This is annoying but a bit unavoidable. The original source should be used if possible, or do the |work= / |via= switch as Skynxnex suggests. I don't think the sites should be blocked, as they could be useful courtesy links. It's just something editor should keep an eye out for, as there's no immediate way of knowing what the actual source is without checking it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Comicbook.com

    [edit]

    Entertainment news website launched in 2007, formerly owned by Paramount Global. Was mentioned in a discussion about DYKG over at VG/S, but no conclusion was reached. It's used on over 12,000 articles. That being said, is this website in any way reliable for info related to entertainment? — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】 22:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Depends on what claim it is used for. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Ramos1990, can you please elaborate? — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】 00:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    What a source is being used for matters as to if a source is reliable or not. Blogs and primary sources may be reliable sources depending on what the sources are being used for. From what I see on comicbook.com, they have an editorial team on news for gaming, anime, etc. They conduct interviews with people in industry and since a lot of news gets funneled by fans first, I don't see this as any less of a source in general. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Gregorian Bivolaru

    [edit]

    How about https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/09/27/cult-misa-survivor-story/ ?

    I have no specific edit in mind, but I want to know if Crikey is WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    unless/until someone disputes it, assume its reliable..
    I see no discussion about that source in the talk page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Well, the website looks like a newspaper, but I don't know if it is legit or just yellow journalism.
    And since we speak of a highly controversial WP:BLP article, I don't want to take unnecessary risks. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    The Wikipedia article on the source, Crikey, gives some details. Looks like it should be treated like a standard news organisation unless there are specific concerns. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Obviously with any BLP be cautious. For instance if the source attributes a statement you should do the same, and look out for sources 'not' saying something ("It's has been rumoured", "Sources have said", etc). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    The Music Trades

    [    edit]

    I did not encounter The Music Trades until yesterday, when I used the Wikipedia Library to access Gale ([63]) and EBSCO ([64]). The editor is a subject matter expert; it seems legit. Reliable/not reliable? (Apologies if The Music Trades has already been discussed; I couldn't find anything.) Thanks! JSFarman (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    It seems obviously reliable to me; is there a reason you think it might not be? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Only that it was new to me and I have been reading music industry trades for a gazillion years. Thank you! JSFarman (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    JSFarman, a gazillion years?. [citation needed] Cullen328 (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Cullen328, ok, fine, maybe not a gazillion years, but I was quoted in Billboard almost 40 years ago and that's gotta count for something. JSFarman (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    JSFarman, it certainly does. Cullen328 (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Reliability of Airfleets.net

    [    edit]

    Hello. Airfleets.net, a website which tracks fleet data from airlines and aircraft information, is used in almost 600 articles. My main concerns are the website's lack of sourcing and information on editorial oversight. This topic has been discussed on the noticeboard but they haven't gained much participation: [Archive 21] [Archive 205]. A recent discussion that I had opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Reliability of Airfleets.net didn't receive many comments but agreed that it was leaning unreliable. I'm hoping that there could be more discussion to further discuss this topic. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Sources should have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. I'd agree with the project aviation discussion that it doesn't look to be user generated, but that beyond that it's difficult to tell as it doesn't state how it gets its information or what (if any) checks it does.
    In some of the past discussions there was meantion that it could be self-published, but I can't find anything to show that's the case or who the author would be. Another way to show reliability is if they are considered reliable by other reliable sources. I can find a few uses as a citation in reliable academic works, but not enough to be completely convincing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

    [    edit]

    Discogs is entirely deprecated as a ref. But should the text in photos of record labels and album jackets (only) be made an exception? Herostratus (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Survey (Discogs images)

    [    edit]

    Discussion (Discogs images)

    [    edit]

    N.B.:earlier discussion was here: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources# Could we talk some horse sense re Discogs? Headcount was 3-2, maybe 4-2.

    N.B.:The RfD is not proposing that these photos be required to ref, just that the editor is allowed to use them if she wants to without another editor deleting them as disallowed.

    • We kind of do this already a lot, we include a link to Discogs in the "External links" section, in fact we even have {{discogs release}} etc. to facilitate this. Problem is this removes the link down away from the the material being ref'd -- bit less than excellent. And if the editor doesn't include that, the reader is usually going to go to Discogs anyway if she wants to verify; it's just more work. Second, c'mon: hella editors are using Discogs to get their info anyway (I know I do) and that can't be stopped. So the current situation is kind of kabuki, and that also is sub-excellent. Herostratus (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    PulseSports

    [    edit]

    I'm coming to ask about the reliability of the source Pulse, specifically Pulsesports.co.ke for Sports related content on Wikipedia. Specifically, this source is being used on Armand Duplantis currently to support a statement in the lead that Duplantis is the "Greatest of All Time". The only thing I could find in the archive about Pulse in general was this brief comment Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#Nigerian_News_Sources saying the puff prose we'd expect from PulseNG or even Vanguard if we're looking at the entertainment section. I have no experience with the website, but the content seems rather informal. There are other, better sources such as the Associated Press that are being used to support the statement that Duplantis is the "Greatest of all Time". There is currently an RfC on the Duplantis page about whether or not "Greatest of all time" can be included in the lead, which I left a comment on, but have not voted on. As I was looking through the sources, I was concerned about the reliability of this particular source and so wanted to get opinions. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 21:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Showbiz411

    [    edit]

    Is Showbiz411 an RS for material about living persons (other than material about the person who is writing the material in question)? This was asked before, but not addressed.

    Many examples across the project. But one is in the Tom Cruise article. fn 128 2603:7000:2101:AA00:14D1:B1C7:E218:EA9A (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    AccuWeather for damage estimates

    [    edit]

    On Hurricane Helene, I added a claim from the Associated Press that referenced an AccuWeather estimate of Helene's economic impact, that estimate being of 95-110 billion 2024 USD, into the article's infobox. One editor, @CycloneIns, reverted my edit citing unreliability, and after I reinstated, another editor, @Zzzs, re-reverted it. The estimate is currently still in the article (in section Impact#United States).

    My understanding, reading through previous RSN entries, was AccuWeather was unreliable for their longer-term forecasts, which I can stand by. However, no discussion as to whether AccuWeather as a whole had come up (except for a sockpuppet's, which will be ignored). Apparently, silent consensus is that AccuWeather is generally unreliable for estimates, the discussion of which I had never been party to, and I'm opening this RSN thread to see if we can't get this sorted and set in stone for the future. Is AccuWeather reliable for damage estimates? GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    I read the article on the associated press and not only it mention Accuweather claim, but it also mention Moody’s Analytics claim of $15-26 billion. So I get that they mention Accuweather claim, but since they mention Moody’s as well, it looks like they just showing the different organizations on what they *think* what the cost could range in. If AP just mentioned Accuweather claim then I think it would make a case on reliability, but you could argued that they mention Accuweather claim not fully on reliability but on how Accuweather is a well known weather organization. Not sure if being well known makes a good case of reliability or not. TheHumanFixer (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Given that the source describes the Accuweather figure as a 'preliminary estimate', regardless of whether they are reliable or not there seems little reason to include it. More accurate estimates are likely to be forthcoming when people have had the opportunity to assess the damage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1248375552"