Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 418

Archive 415

Archive 416

Archive 417

Archive 418

Archive 419

Archive 420

→

Archive 425

Landed families blogspot

Dear Friends,

I just published a first draft of John Rocke. The edit-filter mentioned that I used a deprecated source. As far as I could find out, it's about the landed families blogspot. Do you consider this as an unreliable source? Or is it alright to use this source (next to a number of other ones, of course)? I will be happy to hear of you. Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It would appear to be a non-expert SPS, is that correct? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The author, Nick Kingsley, seems to be cited in articles by the University of Oxford and University College London for his landed families website - that would indicate I believe that he qualifies as a reliable source as a "subject-matter expert". BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

In order to be a subject-matter expert Kingsley would have to be an author on those papers, not just cited by them. A hundred thousand papers citing Inspire (magazine) does not make Inspire a RS. Note that the section you've linked to says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." which directly contradicts what you "believe" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You're suggesting that he would have to cite himself while writing in a reliable source to be considered a reliable source? That doesn't really make sense. I would think being considered reliable by some of the most prestigious institutions in existence would count for something... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

A few other sources on him: mention as retired archivist and member of the National Trust and Historic England; The Times citation mentioning him as a historian on that topic, cited by a museum, some book citations: [13], [14], [15], others. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

He doesn't have to cite himself, he just has to be published by reliable, independent publications. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

And what do you mean by that? Being published by reliable, independent publications - if he writes for them wouldn't that make them non-independent? It would only make sense that that criterion would encompass being cited and referred to as an expert by prestigious institutions and other high-quality reliable sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"if he writes for them wouldn't that make them non-independent" No *facepalm* Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

So, if, say, The Daily News (made up random paper) writes an article about a Daily News reporter, that would count as independent? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Banks Irk (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thats coverage of the subject, not work published by the subject. No it would not count as independent coverage, but we aren't talking about coverage are we? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Now, if that Daily News reporter published a blog, are you saying that is what is permissible as reliable under the subject-matter expert clause? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Banks Irk (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Now I'm just plain confused - what exactly counts as being "published by reliable, independent publications" to go towards the criterion? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

If the International Journal of American Football History and the American Journal of Football Studies published articles by BeanieFan11 about racial discrimination in the NFL then BeanieFan11 would likely be eligible for treatment as a SME on the topic of racial discrimination in the NFL. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, I think I see now - I do think the criterion would be better if clarified, though. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

There would still be criteria to satisfy there, such as the relevant field criteria (if a a dedicated international relations reporter has a food blog thats a no-go). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The Verifiability policy seems to me to be ambiguous about who is a subject-matter expert. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Subject matter experts. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Kingsley' blog is based off his three self-published books on the same subject matter. I don't think that being referenced in a couple of other articles meets the requirements for subject matter expert. He needs to have been independently published by some other reliable source. He does say that he has a couple articles in some local history mags, but I don't think that qualifies. If you have other, better sources, just use those. Banks Irk (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• Just to say WP:SPS requires a subject matter expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. These aren't separate things. Unless Kinglsely has been published by reliable, independent sources he doesn't pass the requirements. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to all contributors. The issue is clear to me, now. It's not the only, or the most important reference in the article. But for further research it may contain relevant information, so I think I can leave it, as it is.
The link to "thepeerage.com" has already been removed, but that did contain false information, so that's no loss. Thanks again to all contributors. --Dick Bos (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC) --Dick Bos (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the link to the Landed families blogspot per the consensus here. Note that the consensus is that this source can not be used (I have no idea how you're concluding that it can be left in). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you exactly mean with consensus. As far as I can see there are at least two persons in this discussion, that have doubts. In Dutch we say: "big steps, home soon." I don't know if there is a saying in English as well. But leave it. It was not a really important ref. But let me say again that I don't agree. Friendly greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You don't appear to have made a policy or guideline based argument, on a technical level you haven't yet disagreed if that is what you intend to do. We clearly have consensus that the author is not a subject matter expert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPS is part of the WP:Verifiability policy, it quite clearly says a self-published subject matter expert has to have previously been published by reliable, independent publications. As long as that's not the case they are not a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC: The Hindustan Times

What is the reliability of The Hindustan Times?

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

Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 21:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RFC According to the archives, there has been no prior discussion of this publication at RSN. WP: BEFORE applies. If you have a specific question about a whether it is reliable for a specific statement in a specific article, ask that question. But a RFC is out of order now. Banks Irk (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for informing me. — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 22:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Like you I doubt that this source should be subject to a RfC right away, but regarding there has been no prior discussion of this publication at RSN, the archives show quite a few discussions on quite a few RSN discussions, albeit quite briefly (e.g., recent examples are 1, 2). VickKiang (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Context? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

DIYeditor, The Hindustan Times is an India-based news publication. I've seen people cite it on jacksfilms, but there seems to be no consenus on the source right now, and I'm not sure if it's reliable. — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 22:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources so just to guess I would say there is no reason to question a notable newspaper. What is the contested material? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

DIYeditor, jacksfilms#Conflict with SSSniperWolf (2022–present) (See WP:AN#SSSniperwolf). — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 22:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

So, the question is it a reliable source for a "feud" between two YouTubers? I'm more inclined to go to WP:AFD to delete the article, since nearly all of the references are to sources that do not meet WP:RS. Banks Irk (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Added the {{More citations needed}} tag on that article, that should encourage other editors to find more reliable sources. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 23:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It is reliable for what it is used for in that article, though I have serious doubts about the notability of a YouTube feud. Banks Irk (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure about the reliability of the publication as a whole, but it does have sponsored content marked as "brand posts" which falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Encyklopedia Warmii i Mazur

https://encyklopedia.warmia.mazury.pl/ (seems recently down)

This is a wiki-based encyclopedia about a Polish region. Right, wiki screams WP:SPS, fandom, but here the project is (was?) government- and academic institutions- supported (see their about (archive). Translating relevant parts from Polish: "The entity implementing this project on behalf of the Center for Education and Cultural Initiatives in Olsztyn is the Olsztyn branch of the Polish Historical Society". The page lists a bunch of supervising academics, some relatively senior (pl:Norbert Kasparek). And pl wiki has an article about supervising academic institution, pl:Centrum Edukacji i Inicjatyw Kulturalnych.

Here is an example of a page about a place that is much better than what we or even pl wiki has, they also cite sources (but no footnotes): [16]. IA has not archived their 'history' wiki page, so I can't at the moment see if the authors are anonymous or not.

Again, since the wiki is down I cannot verify this, but their 'create an account' seems to have no restrictions, and the page states (archive): "The Encyclopedia of Warmia and Mazury is created by people like you.".

So it seems like an open(>) wiki that is presumably curated by academics. Something like Citizendium (although at this point I cannot even confirm if they require real names for the contributors)? So... reliable or not? I mean, open wikis are generally no-no, but they are supposedly curated by real scholars...? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC) PS. Pl wiki has a page about their sister project: pl:Leksykon Kultury Warmii i Mazur. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• As a Wiki, it is user-generated content, and thus not reliable, notwithstanding the academic sponsorship. Banks Irk (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus, use http without the s to access it: http://encyklopedia.warmia.mazury.pl/. I think it is a not-completely-open wiki; there is something like Pending Changes or Flagged Revisions or something running, and you need to email them to become a reviewer. I don't think that is enough to consider them reliable, though :( —Kusma (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Even with some kind of curation I don't see this as being acceptable as a reliable source. An issue with UGC is that an editor could edit the source and then use it as a reference, that wouldn't be something that improves the encyclopedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Slow search

All said://nosaid:liability frameworks 174.90.223.255 (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You may need to explain you question a bit more thoroughly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

+LOLElinruby (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

TVP

I've been following the Polish election, and note that Google has the Polish state broacaster Telewizja Polska, aka TVP, high in the English-language results for the vote count. However, TVP seems to have a poor reputation, and seems to be widely considered to be a government propaganda outlet: see [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23].

Nevertheless, Wikipedia seems to have numerous citations to TVP: see this search.

There have been multiple disccussions of TVP's reliability here in the past (see this search).

Most recently, this discussion seems to have reached the conclusion that while TVP is generally reliable about non-controversial facts, it is unreliable in matters related to politics, and effectively acts just a mouthpiece for the government. There seems to be a similar opinion regarding Polskie Radio, which is similarly state-owned.

However, there's no entry for either in the perennial sources page. Should there be one? — The Anome (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The perennial sources page is only generally for sources that have been repeatedly discussed, so I don't think this quite makes it.

At lot of what appears in the search for uses of TVP are not an issue, part from many use of TVP Info which are throwing of the search results (I still can't get my head around how regex is used), there are many others with references related to television, sport, and deaths that are likely not an issue.

Not to say there aren't some problematic uses, Culture war for instance, but this appear the minority and not a big enough issue for listing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It should not be used as a source for any Polish political material, because it is (as mentioned above) a mouthpiece for the current Polish ruling party. [24] [25] [26]. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It came up on Google wirh reference to casualty numbers for the siege of Mariupol. Their 75,000 estimated casualties number was much higher than those of other sources, and I didn't find another source that used the 75,000 number. While I was looking at this and considering a post here, I found an article in their website that I would consider propaganda, about refugees "taking over Europe," accompanied by dark and menacing graphics.

TLDR imho prefer other sources and use with caution; possibly useable but as a government point of view, likely biased and self-serving and apparently not above xenophobia. Elinruby (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

A few AfDs deadlocked on source evaluation question

I have a few AFDs, that I'm a participant of, for which a disagreement on the usability of sources might be resolved by outside input. First is a European nuclear energy startup Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newcleo, which is now on its third relist. Several news articles have been raised in a dispute between HighKing and Indefensible on whether they are independent of the company's press announcements. The other two are only on their second relist, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Institute for Economic Research. (US libertarian think tank) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veho Tech (US gig economy delivery startup), and have had less back and forth, but nonetheless I find the discussion unlikely to progress without outside input. (Though I could be more biased considering I'm the nom on the latter two and merely !voted on the former) Those two only have about 3 each brought up: For AIER, DeSmog (which is actually quite nice in terms of depth) Resilience.org and Grantham Institute (LSE.ac.uk), plus a few DB entries in LOC.gov and the like; For Veho, Denver BizJournal and the TechCrunch articles [27] [28] are what is under contention. If anyone here has interest in those topic areas, please give your thoughts! Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a courtesy ping would have been nice. Your framing seems incomplete. Regarding Newcleo, there are others voting to keep with other supporting references listed; this is not a disagreement just between HighKing and me as you wrote. As the administrator Liz wrote in the last relist, "this is looking like a Keep or No consensus closure. I don't see support for Deleting this article." Without looking for additional votes, the consensus would rightly be to keep or leave it as-is under no consensus.

Regarding AIER, no one has agreed with your nomination for deletion thus far. But sources have been found to support the subject and been evaluated by 2 reviewers including myself. You may disagree, but maybe leaving it would be the right outcome.

Regarding Veho Tech (which I had not previously looked at), you openly state in your nomination that likely good sourcing has been found by your evaluation. Why is there any issue with simply keeping the article then? I will probably vote to keep on this, but AFD is overrun with nominations (both good and bad) and more cases adds to review workload for all involved! - Indefensible (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm tired of it. This is me leaving it. There will be no further comments on the merits on the AFD. I know what I said in my nom and I consider "likely good sourcing" a misrepresentation. If I raise concerns on methodology it will be on talk page or DRV. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I also have thought recently that AFD is not where I want to spend the most time either. - Indefensible (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of PanAm Post

What is the reliability of PanAm Post?

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

Previous discussion from May 2020 here. NoonIcarus (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2/Cancel prior result: PanAm Post is currently under the third category at WP:RSP, based in a discussion from 2020, which has justified some removals that I wish to bring to the discussion:

• "Ex-Green Beret Behind Venezuela Raid Traveled to Colombia on Private Aircraft Linked to Chavismo". 28 May 2020. (removal) The article was used to reference the participation of businessman Franklin Durán in Operation Gideon, something already mentioned by reliable sources such as Associated Press and El Espectador.
• "Story Behind the Contract: How a Plan to Capture Maduro Was Devised and Scrapped". 28 May 2020. (removal) Overview of Operation Gideon with details covered by sources such as Associated Press, The Washington Post, and Vox
• "Chavista pollster admits Venezuelans want Maduro out of office". 21 March 2016. (removal) Cites a pollster, no reliability issues here either.

As stated by some of edit summaries, many of these facts are published by reliable sources, and in some cases, reliable sources have cited PanAm Post too. It's also worth nothing that months after the last RfC was closed, between August and September 2020, the arguably most troublesome editors of the newspaper left and started their own outlet, "El American": Orlando Avendaño (editor in chief), Vanessa Vallejo (co-editor in chief) and Emmanuel Rincón. The last one actually was mentioned in the opening of the last RfC, regarding his credentials. Since then, PanAm Post's editorial line has improved.

It's been three years since the last discussion at the noticeboard and the changes in the editorial board, and its worth revisiting the outlet's reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the previous discussion, but I'll take a look and come back here based on what I've found. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 18:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

As you have shown here, a lot of these topics are covered by more reliable sources. There is no reason to have a source like PanAm Post being used on the project. WMrapids (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't dismiss references or judge their reliability based on the availability of other sources, and the main issue is that this won't always be the case. PanAm Post has original reporting and valuable material that can be used for sourcing, with attribution, particularly interviews. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

If their original reporting is notable at all, it will most likely be reported by much more reliable sources. However, this site seems completely inappropriate for the project. WMrapids (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Cancel prior result because I think the earlier RfC's 4-way template was inappropriate and the consensus (4 out of 7) small. I ping the prior participants: Hippeus ReyHahn Jamez42 Horse Eye Jack Devonian Wombat ZiaLater Buidhe Barkeep49. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced that the rating should be changed.

  Bottom line, for controversial topics the use of breaking news sources especially those whose reputation has been questioned should be avoided. The events happened years ago, there should be some retrospective sources available that would obviate the use of sources like Pan Am Post. If some details have not been covered in retrospective sources, are they really wp:due? We're an encyclopedia, and trying to provide blow by blow detail is not usually the best way to cover a topic. (t · c) buidhe 19:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Note that Hippeus was WP:CUBL'd. Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  I indeed found that previous decision was wrongly justified. It was based on majority and not on arguments. Barely any sources were casted by those that favored the final results. I tried to contest the decision but the user that closed it decided against it. - ReyHahn (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Peter Gulutzan: Given choices on reliability, which decision would you make? WMrapids (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd decide to look at the piece of work itself and the creator and the publisher. WP:SOURCEDEF says: "Any of the three can affect reliability." The choices given in the 4-way template are only about the publisher. That's just one of the reasons for me to decide it was not appropriate. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3, as I stated in the prior RfC the PanAm Post has published unsubstantiated conspiracy theories accusing Bill Gates of attempting to control the world with vaccines, and publishes virulent opinion pieces under their "news" segment, several of which openly advocate for extreme levels of political violence against supporters of the Venezuelan government. If any fact within it is worth citing, there will be more reliable and reputable sources covering this fact. I note User:NoonIcarus's belief that PanAm's editorial standards have improved since several of its more problematic contributors left, but I do not believe this to be true. Literally within the past week they have published, under their "news" section (so these are not opinion pieces) Chilean government awards life pension to criminals of the outbreak which effectively slanders regular Chilean citizens as criminals for participating in the 2019–2022 Chilean protests and the resolutely silly With Petro, cocaine exports are aimed at replacing oil which provides information that as far as I can tell stands in total contrast to what every actually reliable source says on Colombia's cocaine market: see here for example. As such, the PanAm Post still publishes information that any reasonable editorial line would block as either potentially defamatory or just plain wrong, and it is clearly an unreliable source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll note that the first two articles that you're referring to currently cannot be found at the website:[29][30], apparently being retracted. At any rate, these descriptions appear to be misleading: they don't appear to be "accusing Bill Gates of attempting to control the world with vaccines", nor "advocating for violence against Venezuelan government supporters". --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, just to quickly provide Bloomberg's original report on Colombia's cocaine: Cocaine Is Set to Overtake Oil to Become Colombia’s Main Export. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Well there are still crazy pieces from the same author on the site [31] [32]. The latter is particularly funny now as it includes gems like

Today, while the industrial power of the major nations of the West is languishing and jobs are being destroyed every day, China’s industrial strength is flourishing, and even Wuhan will be back on its feet. On the other hand, the rest of the world seems to have no intention of lifting the quarantines any time soon. In countries like Spain, Italy, and the United States, there are hundreds and thousands of deaths counted every day.

And it seems they're not the only columnist there who publishes crazy stuff [33] That said, I'm reluctant to penalise a whole site just because they allow crazy columnists to publish on their site, at most it means we should exclude their columnists. The question is is the non-opinion part of their site reliable? I don't know, I'm not sure if it's worth looking into a great deal at least for the English part of the site consider it seems to be dead with all the content being from early 2021. The only recent thing seems to be this opinion piece which is slightly less crazy than the other stuff [34], but either way doesn't seem to suggest the English site is going to be useful going forward. I don't understand Spanish so cannot evaluate that portion of their site. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

NB, I see from your comments above that the person I'm referring to actually had a significant position in their news operation. That being the case, I would say there's no point even considering their English site, it had significant involvement from someone who doesn't seem trustworthy and seems to has died not that long after he and the others left. (Technically there might be a short time after, but it doesn't seem worth it for such a short period, and further it's unlikely everything immediately improved the moment they left.) I'll also go as far as to say although I cannot personal evaluate it that we shouldn't trust the Spanish portion from that time period either assuming he had the same level of involvement. So it's really only ~2020 to now that we should bother to consider. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

In those cases, opinion pieces are clearly distinguished from news articles. However, I want to clarify that I don't deny that issues remain with PanAm Post, which is the reason why I stand with Option 2, taking care of these specific cases while being able to use valuable content not found elsewhere else, such as interviews. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You can use a translator to take a look at the active Spanish side of the site, from what I can see there's still a right wing bias to the reporting but there is a marked improvement over their older content. I've compared articles on the site to similar reports by AP News and didn't notice any significant differences ([35] and [36]), though said articles were written by the EFE Agency so it may not reflect on PanAm as a whole. As per the rest of the Spanish articles not written by EFE, they seem reliable to me. Articles like this one that I looked over didn't raise any significant red flags for me.

To address the English side of the website, that side seems to be mostly abandoned (no) and contains the typical borderline insane culture war stuff that was previously mentioned by User:Nil Einne. Some of the authors of said articles, such as Raul Tortolero, still publish articles on the Spanish side, but he seems to only post opinion articles now based on what I can tell. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 16:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

To make a decision though, I'd say Option 2 for the Spanish side of PanAm Post, with extra consideration given towards opinion articles as that seems to be the only problematic part of the site I can see. Besides the English side of course, which I'll mark up to Option 4, as it seems to be mostly abandoned and contains problematic content as previously noticed by other editors. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 16:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Deauthorized: Please see what I found on the Spanish side of the website in this edit. WMrapids (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm very reluctant to use a machine translator when assessing a source for reliability especially when I don't understand the language at all. While machine translations especially for a pairing like Spanish to English are generally good enough that most of the time, they should not significantly change basic factual accuracy, they will often still lose context, nuance and tone and in complex circumstances to risk changing the meaning of stuff in misleading ways. For example while it's partly overt, this opinion column I linked above has an extreme conspiratorial tone pointing to how China is going to use COVID-19, which it wink wink suggests may have been made in a Wuhan lab, to their great advantage. [37] The overt stuff may make it through machine translation but there's a fair chance the extreme conspiratorial tone won't make it through machine translation and even if it does it would be impossible to be sure it was actually present in the original text. But the other issue is that I'm also very unlikely to use a source which I don't understand and require machine translation to cite something. At most I might find something and ask someone who understands to confirm it says what I think it says. Even if I'm just checking an existing citation, if it's very simple perhaps I'll trust machine translation but anything more complicated and I'll again likely seek help from someone who does understand it. So it's better that these people who will be using the source assess the reliability than me who won't. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that the tone of writing can be lost in translation. Perhaps somebody with a better understanding of Spanish than me can take a look at it, and if it turns out that there was something drastic I was missing due to the translation, then I'll reconsider. But for now, I'm standing by my previous decision. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Deauthorized: ReyHahn and I are native Spanish speakers, in case advice is needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: You can see the Spanish side of the website here. WMrapids (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As I said earlier, that piece is particularly funny since with the benefit of hindsight, I don't think anyone will agree much of what it suggested actually happened. And indeed while many countries COVID-19 strategies are widely criticised, China's one is rarely seen as a success now in virtually any area including economically that the column is talking about. Since whatever initial success they may have had with their zero COVID-19, it did start to harm them economically and it also became clear they had no good plan on a way forward. So instead ended up rapidly changing direction in a panic when public pressure began scare the party/government. And notably this rapid and unplanned about face largely due to public demands rather than specifics of the medical situation likely significantly harmed the one benefit of what they did, avoiding lives loss from COVID-19. And this from a country who's ability to plan ahead better than even most successful democracies has generally been a key point of pride. Of course the fact China persisted with extreme lockdowns required by their zero CVOID-19 strategy for so long is another thing which makes that piece funny with hindsight, since it's talking about how they're ending in China but it's unclear when they'll end in other parts of the world. Of course being wrong does not in itself impeach a journalist but when you're coming at things from an extreme conspiratorial angle and your conspiratorial proposal on what's going to happen turns out to be wrong basically every way, well then yes I think it speaks strongly against trusting you. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thank you for your comments. Do you have enough information to make a particular decision? WMrapids (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2/Cancel prior result: as already stated in previous RfC. It has been cited by reliable sources like WaPo, Reuters, WSJ, AP and BBC. Repeating myself: Forbes The 2020 Ranking Of Free-Market Think Tanks Measured By Social Media Impact, that described it as popular and with "solid reporting" on topics related to free market. Associated Press called PanamPost "a conservative online publication run by mostly Venezuelan exiles from Miami" in a piece that confirms PanamPost original investigation. I tried to contest the previous result here and now the results reads Some editors showed its use by other reliable sources (e.g. the AP) and suggested that only its opinion section was troubling., however it still argues that by "consensus" it affects their news coverage (it is unclear to me if this action allies WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). While some concerns have been indicated, I really think that in previous discussion most concerns were based on opinion articles and not on how others news sites describe the sources. Editorial standards are not the best but it is still a source that does their own reporting and retracts articles when possible. There is just not enough secondary sources to assert clear unreliability, we have much worse in that category.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3-4: The fact that the closer refused to revert the previous decision was a good and obvious choice. PanAm Post seems to be very similar to La Patilla in its extremist nature. Its efforts to baselessly attack left-wing governments is clear. And with the COVID-19 content disseminated by them, brought up by Devonian Wombat, it is clear that this source should remain generally unreliable at the very least.--WMrapids (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The articles that you're referring to were retracted. If anything, it demonstrates that PanAm Post has editorial oversight. The outlet should be judged by its current reliability, not the one in 2020. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

PanAm Post is another La Patilla, a Venezuelan extreme opposition website. They have cited Breitbart[38][39][40] and The Epoch Times[41] on numerous occasions for controversial allegations. This article pushes George Soros conspiracy theories about him creating "anarchy" through the US judicial system. Similar to La Patilla, PanAm Post also reposts information from questionable individuals criticizing immigration to the US (see more on this individual here). The editor-in-chief also described climate change science as a "political weapon". And all of these were posted on the main page of the Spanish website, which is as equally damning as their English website. Throw away the key on this one. WMrapids (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, so much for my optimism. Option 3-4 as per the above. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 15:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If La Patilla's RfC has shown anything, is that if PanAm Post is as reliable as La Patilla, then it should be in the second category, "Additional considerations". Under this category, all of the mentioned issues, such as caution in using the outlet for controversial topics, politics, or BLPs, can be addressed. For it to be in the third category, it must be demonstrated that it is generally unreliable, that it cannot be trusted for fact in most cases, and as I demonstrated with my vote with its factual reporting and retractions, this has not been demonstrated. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Well we can start on its writing on climate change on how fringe and unreliable it is. In this case, PanAm Post is even more extreme and unreliable. WMrapids (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3-4. The criticisms from the last RfC have not been addressed. These are:

-- "Much of their reporting has a strong right wing bias which often manifests itself as omitted information, poor sourcing, entertaining questionable scientific views, and sloppy reporting. Ownership is also secret which makes it impossible for us to determine whether this source is independent of the subjects it reports on".

-- "The PanAm Post is owned by PanAm Post LLC, but there is no information on who owns PanAm Post LLC, meaning that the site could have a conflict of interest with things it reports on, and we would not know".

-- "We have an extremist founder who created PanAm Post as a "vocation" that attacks what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources, with PanAm Post being used as a platform for climate change denial and anti-China rhetoric resued from The Epoch Times (among other fringe topics), while their staff uses possibly cooked-up credentials".

The points raised by Devonian Wombat about the publishing of "unsubstantiated conspiracy theories" and "virulent opinion pieces under their "news" segment" indicate the source is not reliable.

It appears that the English version of the site stopped posting articles in 2021, apart from one article from March 2023.

A recent article about marches in Colombia titled "Petro marches: campaign, waste and disconnection from reality" stated "Imitating his mentor, the late Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez, the Colombian president, Gustavo Petro ... As is the end of every megalomaniac, Gustavo Petro took a mass bath amid applause and ovations from his followers ... During his speech in Bolívar Square, the arrival point of the mobilization, the Colombian president invoked “social justice” and “equality”, the main utopian promises of every socialist ".

It has a Policy section which includes sub-categories Cronyism, Authoritarianism, Corruption and Protests. I had a quick look at its Ideology section. There were articles titled "New Zealand's prosperity began with its rejection of socialism", "California governor puts the brakes on his woke agenda and shelves transgender law” and "Soros funds TikTokers who defend Biden and the progressive agenda". Afaict, the articles are not labelled opinion. Burrobert (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Most of the issues that you're bringing on your own are not about reliability, but rather partiality, which is not disputed here but is unrelated to reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

You don’t need to read much of the site to see the problems.

- We don’t know anything about who is behind the site. There is no About page. Who, if anyone, are its editors? How many writers does it have?

- There is no clear division between news and opinion

- Its articles contain few links to support their arguments.

Here are some examples from its articles showing why we should not regard it as reliable:

- It thinks The Communist Party of China (CCP) not only created the coronavirus in a laboratory but also released it intentionally and that, consequently, “the US was precisely the country with the most infections and deaths from COVID-19 in the world”.

- It thinks Gustavo Petro is a megalomaniac

- It thinks New Zealand was saved from being socialist in the 1980’s and that “the socialists imposed [a regulation that] you needed a prescription from your doctor if you wanted margarine”. In fact, there was a time in NZ when you needed a prescription for margarine. The requirement was in the Margarine Act 1908 and was removed in 1972.

- It thinks protecting transgender people is a woke agenda

- It thinks Greta Thunberg’s agenda, “according to experts, is more motivated by political and economic interests than by true initiatives in favor of nature”.

- It describes abortion as “the so-called voluntary interruption of pregnancy”.

Burrobert (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the comprehensive analysis. I'd like to address some of the points you raised:

Ownership and Transparency: While the lack of an 'About' page and undisclosed ownership is indeed a concern, Wikipedia uses numerous sources that may not have transparent ownership but have proven reliability. Transparency is desirable, but the actual content and its alignment with verifiable facts take precedence.

Division Between News and Opinion: Many reputable outlets have a blended style, wherein the same platform provides both factual news and editorial opinions. What's vital is to judge the content based on its merits. The onus is on the editors to carefully consider the nature of the content before using it as a reference.

Links and References in Articles: The absence of numerous links in articles doesn't automatically discredit a source. Traditional newspapers, for instance, don't embed references. It's the factual accuracy and consistency with other known reliable sources that matter.

Also:

Claims about CCP and COVID-19: Highly speculative and conspiracy-oriented claims should always be approached with caution. It's imperative to cross-check with more widely accepted sources.

Gustavo Petro: Labeling political figures often involves a subjective tone. While "megalomaniac" is a strong word, it might fall within the realm of opinion. It's essential to differentiate between the editorial perspective and factual reports.

New Zealand's Margarine Regulation: As you correctly pointed out, there was indeed such a regulation, but the timing in the PanAm Post's assertion was off. It's crucial to fact-check, but this instance seems more of an error than a systematic issue

Greta Thunberg and Transgender Protection: These are opinion pieces and represent the perspective of the writer, not necessarily factual information. Using opinion pieces as factual references is not advisable from any source.

Recent Changes in PanAm Post: One critical thing to remember is the noticeable editorial shift in PanAm Post post-2020. The departure of certain figures and the subsequent changes can't be overlooked. As with any source, the current state should be the primary consideration. Wilfredor (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Ownership and Transparency: Wikipedia:Reliable sources says “When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering ... Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. ... The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited ”.

Recent Changes in PanAm Post: All of the examples I gave were from this year, most were from the last month.

Here is a template for what we should do with PanAm Post from the entry for California Globe in the Perennial list. “There is consensus that The California Globe is generally unreliable. Editors note the lack of substantial editorial process, the lack of evidence for fact-checking, and the bias present in the site's material. Editors also note the highly opinionated nature of the site as evidence against its reliability ". Burrobert (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the detailed analysis you've provided, and the points raised by the other contributors on this matter. I agree that the determination of a source's reliability should be made with care, and with the utmost consideration for the accuracy and consistency of the information provided.. but I've carefully perused the deliberations we've been having on the PanAm Post, and I must say I've reached a markedly different conclusion than Burrobert. It's easy to cast aspersions based on a handful of articles or even opinions, but let's take a broader view, shall we? Firstly, the absence of an 'About' page, while perhaps unconventional, doesn't necessarily equate to a lack of credibility. The Guardian, The Times, and The BBC, all venerable institutions, have had their share of criticisms, and yet, we don't question their credibility at the drop of a hat. The measure of a news outlet's reliability is in the accuracy and integrity of its reporting, not solely in its transparency about ownership. The blending of opinion and news is hardly unique to the PanAm Post. Many esteemed global publications walk a fine line between editorialising and reporting. Should we discard The Telegraph or The Independent because some of their articles have a clear editorial stance? No. It's up to us, the discerning readers, to parse fact from opinion. And looking the specific examples given: Every publication is prone to occasional bias or errors, whether it be the BBC, The New York Times, or any other. I've found several instances where PanAm Post's reportage was not only accurate but also provided a perspective largely ignored by mainstream media.

IMHO, rather than casting aside PanAm Post based on a few contentious articles, I suggest we adopt a more nuanced approach. Let's evaluate each article on its merits, using PanAm Post as a supplementary source, one that offers a different lens through which we can view events. After all, isn't diversity of thought what true journalism is all about? Wilfredor (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2-3 but leaning to 3: Some of the option 3/4 arguments are misplaced in that they point to opinion pieces or pieces by discredited former employees that there seems to be universal consensus not to use. I don't think anyone is arguing for the use of its opinion pieces as sources for facts. But I would say that if there is a consensus for option 2 the additional considerations would need to be extremely stringent (at least along the lines of the extensive additional considerations listed for La Patilla at the RSP): there are articles badged as news that are really opinion pieces and these are poor (some of these cite bad sources such as Breitbart); it should not be used for anything relating to US politics, where these problems seem to be concentrated; it shouldn't be used for anything relating to COVID (I can't imagine why it would be anyway); etc. If it is used, I can only see it being used for a quite narrow range of contexts: perhaps with attribution to triangulate with Venezuelan government sources or for the opinions of notable opposition figures. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Is SVG.com reliable?

I am currently helping out with source assessment tables at Wikipedia:SSSniperWolf sources overview, however, I have hit a roadblock. There is one source from a site called SVG.com, and there seems to be no discussions, RfCs, or any mention of it on RSP. Is it a reliable source for use in BLPs? Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 18:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Looking at the editorial policy page, SVG says all the right things, but looking at the article linked in the table it looks like classic Tabloid Journalism. The article while, while in the voice of the author, is clearly based entirely on claims and statements of the subject, though largely without attribution and with no corroborating statements from any identified third party. I see other red flags as well. This should not be used as a source in a BLP. Banks Irk (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP includes the statement Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources, so the situation is about more than just source reliablity. Although SVG hasn't been discussed before other Static media brands have, they're generally low quality tabloid churnalism. Definitely not something you should think of using in a BLP article, unless it's for the absolutely most mundane information. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject video games thinks it is unreliable. This is the same company that operates ZergNet, which you may know as a source of the never ending stream of clickbait articles that show up on your various news feeds. MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of masonrytoday.com

Is this site a reliable source, https://www.masonrytoday.com/index.php GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• This site is a blog by a single person, Eric Steele, who is not a historian or biographer, and who has an amateur/hobbyist level interest in Freemasonry. He has several blogs, and it appears that his only book is a self-published novel. So, this is a WP:SPS and not a reliable source. Banks Irk (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of WhatPub

WhatPub is a publication by CAMRA (Campaign for Real Ale) about UK pubs. I want to include it in The Chequers, Potters Bar, which I seek to expand. It is not self-published or a Wiki but they describe their website as "independently added and updated by thousands of CAMRA volunteers", which arguably makes it something in-between. Kind regards, JacobTheRox (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Seems OK - it relies partly on user submissions, but there's some screening mechanism. Reminds me a bit of the Zagat guides. Neutrality^talk 12:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Interesting situation. If I understand correctly, CAMRA has about 150,000 members and a number of local chapters. If I'm a member, I can submit information by email to my local chapter, who will vet it in some undescribed process. Alternatively, I could volunteer to be a reviewer. Again, no process described of how that works. But it appears that not everyone is a volunteer, and that they have an actual staff of some kind. Elsewhere, it appears that their staff numbers around 50 people. What they do in terms of actual editorial oversight of WhatPub is a mystery, but this does not appear to be user-generated content in the way that we normally think of it. CAMRA has a number of other publications, including books and periodicals, published over decades. I'm inclined to think it is a reliable source for the purposes you suggest. Banks Irk (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

V8

Ana Mourín once wrote the book "V8, un sentimiento", a book about the argentine Heavy Metal band V8. It seems to be a good book, quite complete, going into great detail and well documented... but Mourín was the wife of Ricardo Iorio, the bassist of the band. He had quite a conflictive relation with the other members, both then and after the band's breakup.

Is such a book an acceptable source for the articles on V8 and its members? Cambalachero (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm trying to figure out who the publisher was, or if this was a self-published work. As near as I can tell, there are only pirated PDFs of the book, and no hard copies available, so I am skeptical. Can you provide more information about the source? Banks Irk (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks to be a self-published spiral-bound pamphlet. Not a reliable source, especially for BLPs. Banks Irk (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Done, removed from the article. Cambalachero (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of themessenger.com

Is the news website themessenger.com reliable enough for use in a BLP, especially when it comes to Internet personalities? — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 21:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a better source, but remember that context is important when judging a source, see WP:RSCONTEXT. A source might be generally reliable, but not specifically reliable in a particular situation. Which article are you thinking of using? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested, I am currently assessing sources in Wikipedia:SSSniperWolf sources overview (see WP:AN#SSSniperwolf for further context). — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 22:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I guessed that from you thread above. Looking at Wikipedia:SSSniperWolf sources overview I take it you mean these two articles[42][43].

I'll let other editors chime in, but they look very "he said/she said" and heavily rely on primary sources. This is not otherly surprising as the are from the "Entertainment" rather than "News" side of themessenger.com. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• As above, this is just tabloid, gossip journalism that not only is not reliable for a BLP, but also runs afoul of WP:NOTGOSSIP. Banks Irk (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Apart from individual concerns with particular sources, most of the sources used are WP:NEWSORGs. Any assessment of reliability or otherwise made here (and/or recorded in perennial sources) is in the context of WP:NEWSORG. Unfortunately though, a common view is that an endorsement of reliability is independent of WP:NEWSORG. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This comment got placed in the wrong spot but I will leave it as it might nonetheless be relevant and has been responded to. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes as per my comment The Messanger is a generally reliable source, but this isn't a news article and Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The publication seems to have decent editorial control (its editors include several former editors-in-chief of major reliable publications, and they seem to have credible oversight over the content), though it's relatively new, having launched in May. And, even with a launch in May, it was a limited one; the website has been rolling out various new verticals as time goes on. Quite a bit of the site's reporting is secondary (i.e. reporting that someone else reported something), and there's the usual caution when using those. The same goes for the human interest reporting in its entertainment news vertical, (WP:NEWSORG states, after all, that Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as straight news).

The company's also in a bit of financial distress at the moment, so it may well be worth keeping a close eye on how that develops; if staff is slashed, then editorial quality might be a concern. But, at the current moment, it's probably as reliable as major metro TV station's news reporting (think NBC New York or CBS Chicago). Those tend to be lumped in as a WP:TIER3-sort of source (a subset of GREL), and I think that's about what we have with The Messenger. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Dawn newspaper

Dawn (newspaper) is a major Pakistani English language news website. It has been cited over 12,000 times on Wikipedia per Dawn.com  . It's only really got passing mentions in previous discussions on this noticeboard, and views on it seem mixed-positive [44] [45] [46]. BBC News has good things to say about it [47]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Looks like over 48,000 times! WP:NEWSORG applies. Banks Irk (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Dawn is the best news outlet in Pakistan in any language, there are systemic issues with freedom of the press in Pakistan and undue influences but I would say that Dawn is in general reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it a general question, or are you asking about a specific article or areas where it's used? Alaexis_¿question? 20:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I am satisfied with HEB's attestation of Dawn's reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Dawn is Pakistan's paper of record. Even with the general concerns about press freedom in Pakistan (such as when their internet regulator... blocked Wikipedia earlier this year...), it seems to be generally a good source. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliablity of Tubefilter

Is Tubefilter reliable for use in BLPs (Further context at WP:RSN#Reliability of themessenger.com and WP:RSN#Is SVG.com reliable?)? — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 13:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Tubefilter appears to be generally reliable, but the specific source is an interview sponsored by the subject's publicist. As an interview, it's a primary source, and the sponsorship means that it's not independent. The entire interview series is in conjunction with the publicist, so they shouldn't be used in BLPs. Banks Irk (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  They could be used for non-controversial and unexceptional details, but wouldn't count towards notability due to not being independent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Banks Irk, what about this source? — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 14:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP. An online feud between two YouTubers based on tabloid-style online yellow journalism doesn't belong in a BLP. Banks Irk (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• I concur that TubeFilter is among the most reliable sources that cover YouTubers and other internet personalities. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Human Rights Without Frontiers International

I am asking the reliability about Human Rights Without Frontiers International (HRWF) and Forum for Religious Freedom Europe primary for copyediting Freedom of religion in Japan. Most of its reports concerning Japan are either directly written by Massimo Introvigne, published by CESNUR (Bitter Winter)[48][49][50][51] or citing sources from Introvigne[52]. CESNUR has already been deemed "generally unreliable" per our consensus. Does this verdict extend to HRWF for treating Introvigne/CESNUR as a genuine source? Should we merely avoid HRWF reports which cite/re-distribute Introvigne/CESNUR? -- -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

All of the linked sources are simply reprints of articles in other publications,vso assessment of reliability depends entirely on the original sources, not HRWF. Though, the willingness to republish these sources is a black mark on HRWF. Three of the first four are all reprints from CESNUR, which is assessed at RSN as unreliable. The fourth is a reprint from the Washington Times, an organ of the Unification Church, about the owner's organization. The last one is a reprint, which the original sources flags as an opinion piece for which they disclaim as the author's own opinion. I'm going to venture a wild guess that, if you dig a little, HRWF is a UC organ. But, even if it isn't, these sources are not reliable sources for use in the referenced article. Banks Irk (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

This organisation is another face of CESNUR, which is red flagged on RSP. Our policy on CESNUR applies to HRWF. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Are Ukrainian news sources actually reliable to report the war?

Given that Ukraine is under martial law, that freedom of press is greatly diminished and that people can get arrested, exiled, added to a kill list (or maybe killed if their deaths could be swept "under the rug") for not showing pro-Ukrainian views (even being neutral has been recurrently considered "pro-Russian"), can Ukrainian reporters and news sources like Euromaidan Press, Kyiv Post, Ukrainska Pravda, Deep State, etc, actually be considered reliable? Their usage has been widespread on many Wikipedia articles and considering that many Russian sources were deemed unreliable in the past, many articles are getting severely biased. I think the earlier we create guidelines on sources from both sides the better, because otherwise a lot might have to be rewritten in the future. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• The "sides" are irrelevant. It is only relevant if a specific source (Ukrainian, Russian, USA, whatever) is known for fact checking and accuracy. This needs to be judged on a case to case basis for specific publications and claims because it also depends on the author of the publication and the publication itself, not just the journal. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source. My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• This seems like a misguided approach to bothsidesism, yes both Ukrainian and Russian sources have issues... But both sides do not have issues to the same extent. I would also note that there are numerous non-ukrainian publications reporting from Ukraine who can effectively fact check Ukrainian outlets but very few non-Russian publications reporting from Russia who can effectively fact check Russian outlets. In general the middle of a conflict is a bad time to evaluate sources if only because it turns into a proxy vote for how people feel about the conflict. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Fully agree. While Ukrainian sources may be biased, they can still be reliable, whereas Russian sources, for being mostly or entirely state-run, have been deprecated in the past and proven to not be reliable sources. Jebiguess (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• In my (extensive) experience, some of the listed sources are reliable (even concerning war reporting), and some are propaganda outlets. I would say individual decisions on case to case basis have to be made. Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Ditto to the rest of the comments. Reliability should be decided on a case to case basis. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• It's a fact that the press in Ukraine works under the conditions of martial law, which gives the government right to control media. It doesn't mean of course that everything published in Ukraine is unreliable, however it introduces a measure of bias. Consider, for example, the Chasiv Yar missile strike. Ukrainian outlets did not mention that some of the dead were soldiers (example) and it was the NYT that wrote about it. I agree with the previous comments that we need to make case-by-case decisions. Alaexis_¿question? 12:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

👍 Thank you all. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Apart from individual concerns with particular sources, most of the sources used are WP:NEWSORGs. Any assessment of reliability or otherwise made here (and/or recorded in perennial sources) is in the context of WP:NEWSORG. Unfortunately though, a common view is that an endorsement of reliability is independent of WP:NEWSORG. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This keeps coming up. I would be sympathetic to it if it were also applied to Russia, which is also, note, under martial law, and where journalists are actually being jailed, which afaik is not the case in Ukraine. Also, the idea that we can't trust let's say the New York Times or Le Monde simply boggles the mind, but let's say that this is my own bias: the solution would then seem to be to be to use academic sources since we are this far out from events such as Bucha and they do exist. I don't think the answer is a long article about how there is no such thing as the truth Elinruby (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Equaldex

This site also kind of 'open wiki'. I saw many false informations on that site, they rarely put any source. -GogoLion (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears that it is cited as a source in approximately 50 articles[53]. It is clearly just a Wiki, so it is user-generated content, and not reliable as a source. Banks Irk (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Clearly users generated content and so not a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you put it on list? -GogoLion (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Due you mean the perennial sources list? That's only for sources that have been repeatedly discussed or that are causing major issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

https://pilot-demo.jdcrp.org/collection/schloss/

Jewish Digital Recovery Project looks pretty legit to me, but it's for a point that I'd like to flesh out where secondary sources seem sparse in English, so I'd be relying on it quite heavily, even though it too looks kinda primary. It may lead to secondary sources, though.

The context Nazi looting of artwork, and specifically Hans Leimer] in Countesses of the Gestapo, although I've been developing other related articles, and there is already a survey article for the Nazi looting that all this should be linked into. Assuming it's legit, it could be the mother lode, though, so... Anyone care to opine? I don't want wishful thinking to mislead me here. I did already check the archives. Elinruby (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly reliable, different parts could be considered primary or secondary. In the specific case of the Hans Leimer page the details seem to come from the essay by Marc J. Masurovsky, who appears to be an expert in the topic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This looks to be a reliable source for the proposed use. Banks Irk (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

South African sources

• thesouthafrican.com  
  
• timeslive.co.za  
  

On multiple occasions I have stumbled across wikipedians nominating South African articles for deletion due to non-reliable sources which most South African articles cite because they are believed to be independent and reliable, like here, one editor even stated that

“ ...some nominators and participants are not familiar with the South African sources, or with the subject. “I’ve never heard of them” is not a valid reason for deleting an article. ”

Only one has been recognized as reliable by the Cite Highlighter script which is Independent Online (www.iol.co.za). On few occasions I've seen editors defining thesouthafrican.com as a reliable source, and a discussion for www.timeslive.co.za here never reached consensus as admin Dodger67 deemed it reliable. My question is, are the websites (thesouthafrican.com and www.timeslive.co.za) reliable? dxneo (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've used both and they seem reliable to me. But then again, I have mostly been using them for sports and buildings articles rather than anything more controversial. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the quote meant to be hypothetical? Nobody in that discussion argued that "I’ve never heard of them" was a valid reason to delete the article. Not convinced there is actually an issue here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I often go through discussions where such claims are raised and the editor I quoted that from frequently participate in WP:AfD (I often bump into his name under music related discussions), I believe he said that out of experience in his time in AfD. dxneo (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Well then go through that discussion and show me where such claims were raised. Because I'm not seeing them, it appears to be a straw man. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, like I said, I've been going through them, not participating, meaning I cant easily find the discussions and I was once a WP:NPR but had my perms removed because I wanted to gain more experience and learn how sources are assessed/analyzed leading me to going through (mostly) closed AfDs, but if you want the discussion pages feel free to ask the editor I quoted the text from. Again, I came here to find help if the above mentioned sites are RS or not as in one discuss one editor raised claims in a discussion that another South African website Independent Online (www.iol.co.za) use Wikipedia as a source, however it is now identified reliable. Oh and you look up the discussion if you also think I'm making stuff up. I'm more concerned about South African websites as I'm mainly focused on South African related topics. dxneo (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say you were making stuff up, I said that you were taking a straw man seriously. @Park3r: can you explain what you meant? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"I've never heard of them" is not a valid argument in an AfD, or any other discussion. Such arguments should be ignored by the closer. Is there an ongoing dispute or is it a general question? Alaexis_¿question? 20:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Alaexis, unfortunately closed discussions which will take me forever to find, I'm sorry. dxneo (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No worries, just raise it here next time. Cheers! Alaexis_¿question? 21:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

format

"never heard of them" comes up a lot with African sources, more so when they are in French btw. IOL seems to have been bought by the Chinese:"According to The Economist, IOL "often engages in 'information laundering' designed to make sentiment appear homegrown, says Herman Wasserman at the University of Cape Town". The Times looks highly respectable, even venerable, and like the SouthAfrican has a nicely detailed About Us. The South African carefully sets out the source of its funding and disclaims any ties to political parties or religious groups. No wiki page though, at least not in English, but that isn't required, just easier. Pribably reliable if you ask me. hth Elinruby (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby, here is The South African and TimesLIVE.
Horse Eye's Back, get it? Not only one but two can attest to my statement.
All I need here is a clearer consensus, hopefully unanimous. Have you assessed the sites yet? ihateneo (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, I read the "never heard of them" comment to refer to the subject of the AFD, not to the sources. But that is neither here nor there. The South African and Times Online are ordinary news organizations of long standing, and so WP:NEWSORG would apply, including all the usual disclaimers. Whether a specific source from these publications is reliable for a specific statement in a specific article depends entirely upon the context, including for notability. Banks Irk (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Fake reviews at USA Today ?

This article may be of interest to readers of this noticeboard: https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2023/10/26/usa-today-gannett-reviewed-ai-fake-writers/ 185.104.139.34 (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a paywalled article. Is there any indication that USAToday reviews written by fake writers are being used as sources in articles here? Banks Irk (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems they hired a third party to "generate paid search-engine traffic", which then generated a lot of barely polished AI junk articles many of which have been deleted. Unless there are articles using recent USA Today reviews I don't think there's much to do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

We seem to barely use this site, thankfully. I've removed use in an ad-like paragraph; it's now used in only 8 articles, and they seem OK. DFlhb (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Follow up on unresolved reliable sources check: seeking unaffiliated editors to review

Hello, This is a follow up to this previous post: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_417#Are_these_sources_reliable_for_BLP?

Would an editor unaffiliated with editing the Amy Karle article please review if the sources for this section meet blp standards and identify which sources do and which do not? If you have availability, please find the most recent version here and share your thoughts:

Extended content
Karle's artworks have been exhibited in Ars Electronica, Austria, Beijing Media Art Biennale, China, The Centre Pompidou, France, Mori Art Museum, Japan, Museum of Contemporary Art Taipei, Taiwan, Nova Rio Biennale, Brazil, The Smithsonian Institution, United States of America, and the Triennale di Milano, Italy. References

Note this is not currently on the page, seeking review and clarity from the editors here.

Thank you -Bkbray (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Could you give all of us a little break? Especially since so many of these are not in English, Google Translate notwithstanding. Which of these dozen plus sources are actually in question and in dispute, so we can narrow down the list. Banks Irk (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Banks Irk Thank you for your response and thank you for your time. I think this sentence and sources are ok.

  I edit a number of artist pages and haven't had a problem on other exhibition sections that were done similarly, however I acknowledge that I may have things to learn and update. I had initially created a long exhibition list on this article from various sources during research (as I did on other artist pages). It was deemed too long and a ref bomb, then it was brought down to this single sentence by other editors. I don't have any dispute nor issue with that, I think it works well as is above as a single sentence.

  The reason that I've brought this sentence back up for review here is because one editor keeps reverting stating that the sources don't have consensus or aren't BLP appropriate. This editor hasn't specifically stated which sources (Also, consensus does not mean one person). That editor stated to only add independent, reliable source that meet BLP standards and complained that they looked too much like announcements.

  I understand that Arist BLPs should include mention of major exhibitions and I don't believe that articles which announce a major exhibition or biennale and discuss artworks are an issue. Many of these publications like DesignBoom, Stirworld, DesignMilk, Clot, Tokyo Art Beat, are recognized in the art/design industry. Publications like Wired, Smithsonian, The Gap, Der Standard are more widely recognized. Checking here: are these sources the appropriate quality to use for this purpose?

  A few different editors reviewed, gave feedback, added more high quality sources and made updates, but the single editor keeps reverting. A few editors on the talk page have called for the content checked by neutral editors. I would like to focus on content and hear what works and what doesn't and don't want to make it a behavioral dispute. The conversation on the talk page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amy_Karle#Long_laundry_list_of_Exhibitions

  Hoping an editor who has some time to review can let us know if this sentence has quality refs to be included in the article, and if not, which have to be removed.

  Thank you Bkbray (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's helpful. The 10 sources you've identified here are clearly reliable for purposes of supporting the statements that the artist's work was exhibited at the referenced galleries/museums. Looking at the talkpage discussion, I have major problems with the ever-shifting arguments against the sources and the content; putting it most charitably, I don't find them convincing. That leaves five sources. I'll try to look at them later, though I note that I can't translate the one in Chinese. Banks Irk (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for looking into this and for your time @Banks Irk. I look forward to hearing back on what is reliable of the remaining sources from you and other editors when you have the time.

  3-5, 9, and 15 have to be checked. If the Chinese articles are too off-the-wall those exhibitions do no have to be included unless there's a stronger reference. I think 15 Domus is reliable as a recognized art/design/architecture world magazine. I look forward to your feedback. Thank you, Bkbray (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand Herald, Whanganui Chronicle, opinion piece?

• Campbell, Alison (2018-05-14). "Bold claims of water machine examined". NZ Herald. Retrieved 2023-10-25.
• Water ionizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Used to verify, "The effectiveness of the process is debatable because electrolysis requires significant amounts of time and power; hence, the amount of hydroxide that could be generated in a fast-moving stream of water such as a running tap would be minimal at best."
• Talk:Water_ionizer#Herald_Source
• About the author, Whanganui Chronicle, The New Zealand Herald

The content was added to the article four years before the reference was published. [54] Is it reliable, quoting the Wikipedia article where it was recently added [55] as a reference? - Hipal (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Since the claims involved appear to be regarding health effects, I'd venture that this falls under WP:MEDRS for which a newspaper OpEd is not a reliable source. Banks Irk (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The claim involved is about the time and power requirements of producing hydroxide from tap water, not about health effects. There are two issues: 1) Whether alkaline water has health effects, and 2) Whether these devices even produce significant alkaline water in the first place. Claim 2 isn't a health claim. MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Whether alkaline water has health effects clearly falls under WP:MEDRS

Whether the devices are effective in producing alkaline water from a chemistry/engineering perspective is not something that we should be using a newspaper op-ed as a source. As an aside: Dr Campbell citing a Wikipedia article on the subject doesn't actually bother me. A qualified person writing that Wikipedia got something right isn't a red flag. Banks Irk (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

As always, we're limited in that most academics ignore fringe stuff rather than responding to it. Per WP:PARITY, we don't need to insist on top-flight journals to debunk devices like these. MrOllie (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Three other sources that are already in the Water ionizer article have supported the claim that they do produce water that is alkaline. Two of those are studies (one, about ionizers in particular, the other about electrolysis production of alkaline water, which is the same mechanism) that give measured pH of the water produced and show that it is alkaline.

More info here: Talk:Water ionizer#Water ionizers raise the pH of the water they're ionizing.

There is snake oil in the health claims, for sure, but the mechanism of action is well-explained, well-understood, and well-studied. We shouldn't be using an op-ed that quotes the Wikipedia article itself (without vouching that it is correct) to contradict two studies that disprove the claim. No other evidence, other than this circular op-ed, has been provided that these devices do not produce alkaline water. Ronnocerman (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean "mechanism of action of producing alkaline water", not "mechanism of action for the health claims". Ronnocerman (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really, no. Those other sources support that someone somewhere has built a water electrolysis machine. I could support that myself, since I built one in high school chemistry lab. That doesn't undercut the source in question. We know that the ones being sold to households don't do much because the buyers aren't complaining about their electric bill doubling. I don't plan to debate the content issue here any further since it is largely off topic to this discussion. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:PARITY, I am documenting the large amount of evidence to the contrary as to why we shouldn't be including a fringe theory from an op-ed piece that these do not produce alkaline water. Ronnocerman (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is about the reliability of the reference. Please don't disrupt the discussion with other topics. --Hipal (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Understood. I had thought that Wikipedia:PARITY was part of reference reliability, but perhaps it is not and that's instead a follow-up conversation for the talk page. Ronnocerman (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct. This is not the place for that discussion. Banks Irk (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliable. The NZ Herald is one of New Zealand's two major newspaper groups. If it's the op-ed nature of the piece that is the problem, then the article it links back to at is a straightforward piece of news reporting. I assume that Wikipedia:PSEUDOSCIENCE would also apply here. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The narrow dispute here is not over sources for whether alkaline water has any health effects. It is over sources for whether the ungodly expensive kitchen countertop alkaline water machines actually produce alkaline water or not. The linked article doesn't address the second question. In a partial amendment to my earlier comment above, I am a bit troubled that a direct quote of a Wikipedia article wasn't in quote marks. there are other reliable sources in the article that support the statement that these machines don't actually make alkaline water. Banks Irk (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

References

RfC: Anadolu Agency

Which of the following options describes Anadolu Agency (English language edition) the best as a reference?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated
• Note: The last and only RfC was conducted in 2019, according to the WP:RSPS.

Survey (Anadolu)

• Option 1 for general topics and option 2 for international politics – Anadolu Agency is the oldest and most well-established news agency in Turkey.

According to Serpil Karlıdağ from Başkent University: "Media agencies such as Anadolu Agency are official state institutions. [And] Anadolu Agency is an important device for the official discourse to circulate."

According to Ebru Karadoğan İsmail from Üsküdar University, "...Anadolu Agency's coverage is comprised of short stories that focus on factual statements and immediate outcomes rather than an elaborate analysis..."

According to Mehmet Özçağlayan and Omo Aiman Boudchar from Marmara University, Anadolu Agency is regarded as a reliable source in the Arab world.

Anadolu Agency's content is used by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International.

From my personal experience, most of the pieces on Anadolu Agency is regular content published in Western press often with Turkish viewpoint. But I haven't came across explicitly false statements. While it is described by multiple sources as having a bias for Turkey (as seen in the previous RfC), WP:BIASEDSOURCES are allowed as long as they are publishing factual content.

Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2, Anadolu is a government mouthpiece and offers a significant viewpoint but not without significant bias (especially when it comes to special issues such as the Kurds and elections). I would say its generally usable with attribution except for controversial topics which involve Turkey. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2/3, I'm not seeing anything to justify changing the prior consensus. OP seems to be confusing "state institution" for reliability. The cited examples of Amnesty International articles are primarily using AA's photojournalism, not their factual reporting, with the exception of [56] where they are given attribution for an uncontroversial detail. Scholarly assessments of AA, such as Irak 2016, describe AA as a mouthpiece of the Turkish government closely controlled by AKP leadership. The examples of İsmayil 2022 and Özçağlayan (2022) are being misrepresented; İsmayil is purely describing AA's writing style, not that it has a track record of reliability, and Özçağlayan is a) purely discussing TRT Arabic, not AA as a whole, and primarily discusses indicators of the publication's popularity, rate of publication, and general Turkish soft power across the Arab world rather than its reliability as a news source. In fact, Özçağlayan's analysis directly treats AA as a public relations vehicle for the Turkish government and assesses its effectiveness based on its ability to promote Turkish interests. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is 100% false. Organizations like BBC use Anadolu Agency in non-photojournalistic context. Dağhan Irak is a sports journalist and worked for terrorist Gülen network's disinformation platform Taraf.

  The other sources are presented absolutely correctly. Özçağlayan does not discuss TRT World at all in his paper: "The study also shows that these newspapers, which are known for their professionalism in the Arab world, consider Anadolu Agency as a reliable news source." Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  If you're referring to it as "terrorist Gülen network", I'm afraid you've outed your POV-pushing intent. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Also, I'm a bit confused--is this RfC supposed to be about TRT World or Anadolu Agency? Despite their near-identical funding and editorial line at the present moment, they are not actually the same publication and we can't infer statements about the one in RS to apply to the other. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Please review WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:BLP, and WP:RGW. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  LOL, touche Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2-3 (Keep current listing): According to generally reliable Coda Media[57], "Anadolu Agency, or AA, has become ground zero in Turkey’s information wars. Over the last four years it has reversed its editorial objectivity to provide ardently pro-government points of view, ranging from charges of electoral fraud, libelous accusations against government critics and publishing misleadingly optimistic economic data" and that "AA ... routinely demonize Erdogan’s political opposition as terrorists". This appears to show that it may be unreliable in its reporting for contentious topics and for bold claims. As for the current listing on WP:RSP, an addition should be made to require in-text attribution for its usage.--WMrapids (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 for general topics - simply keep in mind it's a state broadcaster. Option 3 for Turkish-related articles (be they politics, culture, war/disasters, etc) - Anadolu has an extensive recent history of pushing the Erdogan government's line on things. The Kip 04:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 for general topics, Option 3 for the topics that are sensitive from the Turkish government's point of view (Kurdish-Turkish conflict, Turkish politics, Israel/Palestine). Sources say that AA is a "government mouthpiece" (in Mainstreaming the Headscarf by Esra Özcan, p. 40) and that it's been transformed for Erdogan's poliical goals (Hungry for Power by Aydoğan Vatandaş). Alaexis_¿question? 19:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Baykan, Dildar. (2019). "FETÖ network in the US: Aydoğan Vatandaş". Anadolu Ajansı. Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Well, the fact that they call the Gülen movement FETÖ ("Fethullahist Terrorist Organisation") kinda reinforces my point, no?

  At any rate, there are other sources which talk about the government control of AA. For example Ihsan Yilmaz wrote that Anadolu Agency [has] been harnessed by the government to promote its message (Digital Authoritarianism and Its Religious Legitimization, p. 28). Alaexis_¿question? 10:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is not true. Firstly, the term FETÖ was coined by the secularist opposition members who were persecuted by the Gülenists. Their infiltration of the government was published by journalist Ahmet Şık in the book The Imam's Army. And secondly: Oktay, Mücahit. (2021). "FETÖ member İhsan Yılmaz confessed the efforts to infiltrate the US army". Anadolu Ajansı Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter who coined this term. They are now hostile to the Turkish government and the fact that AA use this term (unlike basically everyone else outside of Turkey) shows that they are influenced by the government. In any case, this is not my main argument and I provided another source which says the same thing. Alaexis_¿question? 18:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Independent courts have ruled that the Gülen network is a terrorist organization. AA follows the verdict of judiciary.

  Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  • OP has been indef-blocked as an AE action, largely on the strength of their above arguments. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2-3 (current listing): State news agency from a country with low freedom of the press and that lacks editorial independence. Unreliable for politics, but might be used to reference Turkey's government positions. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2+ per discussion above. (Generally reliable on non-contentious topics, reliable for Tu gov positions, avoid/attribute for sensitive topics, older content more reliable than recent.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• option 2+ regarding topics on Turkish-Kurdish conflicts

If editors are using Anadolu Agency on issues related to Turkish-Kurdish conflicts, they should restrict its usage only to report the Turkish government stance or Turkish viewpoints with attribution.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes this is important: if we list additional considerations that apply, we should definitely include Kurdish issues, for which they should be attributed/triangulated BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 for the most part per discussion above. They're generally reliable on international coverage without Turkish gov interest, reliable for Turkish government statements and positions, and for conflicts the Turkish government is involved with, Option 3 or attribute the affiliation with the Turkish government. Jebiguess (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Discussion (Anadolu)

• It appears that this publication is very widely cited as a source in Wikipedia, over 2000 times [58], and its current classification at RSP is presenting no barrier to such use. Other than the OP's position that they believe that a higher reliability classification is warranted, is there a practical reason for a new RFC here? I don't see one. Banks Irk (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Also that the last RfC is 4 years old, in addition to the what you've said: "Stale discussions: The source has not been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard for four calendar years, and the consensus may have changed since the most recent discussion." (copied from wp:rsps) Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• That is taken out of context. It is not an instruction that it is OK to start a new RFC, it is simply a legend for the symbol used on RSP for 4+ year old consensus discussions. Banks Irk (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been deleting it in Russian war articles based on the RFC. Often, though; I was able to find another source for the material, but not always. So I consider it a poor source, although not out and out disinformation Elinruby (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Keraunos

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

---

Which of the following options describes the Observatoire Français des Tornades et des Orages Violents (Keraunos) (Website) [Translated: French Observatory of Tornadoes and Violent Thunderstorms] the best as a reference?

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

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Notes: No prior RfC RS-related discussions and no (sourced-based) Wikipedia article, however, cited on several weather-related articles including (not limited to): October 2022 European tornado outbreak, List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes, 2018 Atlantic hurricane season, List of European tornadoes in 2022, Tornadoes of 2022, Montville, Seine-Maritime, 1984 Soviet Union tornado outbreak, List of tornadoes by calendar day, Enhanced Fujita scale, and dozens of others locatable via a search of "Keraunos" and "tornado" in the Wikipedia search bar.

Survey (Keraunos)

• Option 1 - Keraunos is cited in scientific published papers ((2 citations - American Meteorological Society article), (2 citations)), published scientific articles ([59]), cited by news outlets (Connexion France, The Weather Channel) and cited by the European Severe Storms Laboratory on several occasions (one visible on the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes, 1845 French tornado). All indications are that it is a reliable source. P.S. No disagreements have occurred previously about this source, however, given how much it is cited on Wikipedia, a RfC confirming it is notable is probably best. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Does this really need an RFC if there has been no prior discussion? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah. On October 2022 European tornado outbreak back in July, there was a disagreement between editors related to a Keraunos article. It was edit-summary debate and no discussion on a talk page occurred. Also, now that I looked, there is an undated/unsigned comment on Talk:August 2008 European tornado outbreak related to a Keraunos article (editor disagreeing with it) and a comment on Talk:1984 Soviet Union tornado outbreak mentioning a Keraunos article back in 2011. Having a formal "it is reliable" or "unreliable" discussion can at least solve any future debates that would arise. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 Doesn't list a staff page or state the actual qualifications of the individuals involved, which makes the assessments it creates unreliable by default. There is no way of knowing who wrote the reports. Noah, AA^Talk 22:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Question, in situations like this, is it not assumed that the "staff" wrote it? Obviously the National Weather Service offices contain a staff-directory, but things like tornado damage surveys do not ever include an actual author. Also, that begs a question of how do we handle the 1845 France F5 tornado? ESSL's sole URL based source for it is Keraunos (seen in [60]). ESSL is a reliable source, so that would complicate ESSL's usage of Keraunos. I.E. We say ESSL is using an unreliable source. Just some questions/food for thought I guess. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  The NWS is widely cited and known to be reputable where the same can't be said for Keraunos. I see further literature there that would support what is being claimed so it may not be an issue. Noah, AA^Talk 23:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RFC. No prior discussion, no active dispute. There is no reason for an RFC. It does look like there are nearly 100 citations to this site. If there are indeed no named staff/authors/editors, that does make assessment of reliability problematic. Ask the simple question, "Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article?"and withdraw the RFC. Banks Irk (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm disputing its reliability here. This definitely would fail in a SR at FAC since there is no indication of who the staff are other than they are "professionals". While it isn't a newspaper and wouldn't have editorial oversight, there is a minimum that authors be identified and their qualifications be listed in order to determine they are qualified in making the statements that they are. Withdrawing this RfC would sweep the issue under the rug and simply require another discussion. Why not just tackle this here since we are already discussing it? Noah, AA^Talk 22:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Retroactive application of reliability

I want to inquire about Inderjit Singh Jaijee. From what I've gathered about this author, he is a human rights activist in the Punjab region. He used to be a marketing executive until Operation Blue Star occured in 1984, whereupon he dedicated his life to activism. He was also a MLA in the Punjab Legislative Assembly for a year (1985-1986). He is also associated with the Baba Nanak Educational Society (a religious organization judging by its nomenclature) and the Movement Against State Repression (which does not appear to be a particularly prominent organization given that I wasn't able to find anything about it)

Jaijee does not have an educational background in any relevant humanities discpline like history, anthropology, political science but he does have two books that were published by SAGE-[61] written in 2019 and this book [62] written in 2011. I'm not denying the reliability of these SAGE published books but would his earlier books which were not peer reviewed also be considered reliable in light of his later accomplishments-[63].

In my opinion, they would not, owing to Jaijee's lack of experience and training in academia and the lack of peer review; it was also written over a decade prior to his first SAGE published book. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliability is set out in WP:RS. In general, an author of an RS does not get a halo effect which raises the level of everything they have written to RS. One exception would be the rare cases where a superstar in their field self-publishes (in a way which other RS recognizes). Bon courage (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Not everything published by academic publishers is an academic work. Even academic publishers (and their peer-reviewers) sometimes accept activist works for publication in the interest of openness and debate regarding contentious topics. (And of course, many academics are also activists on the side, sometimes openly and sometimes secretly.) Our only recourse is WP:NPOV, whereby we give reduced weight to the activist views, compared to academic views. WP:RS should not be regarded as a black-and-white criterion, whereby something is to be regarded as "reliable" or "not reliable". Reliability is only the minimum requirement, not the be-all-and-end-all of what goes into Wikipedia.

Books published by popular publishers don't get a free pass. The fact that the same author later published something by an academic publisher gives a little bit of concession to the work, but not a whole lot. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The idea that there is a classification system of published works and that "activist works" and "academic works" are two disjoint categories in this classification is bizarre. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Arabiya

Per alarabiya.net   we have over 3,500 citations to Al Arabiya, a news organisation based in Saudi Arabia. While originally independent, the Government of Saudi Arabia acquired a majority stake in its parent company MBC Group in 2018. Previous discussion on RSN looks to be sparse and inconclusive. While due to its ownership, it's probably not usable for things relating to Saudi Government, like Arab News news (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Arab_News) is it usable for things not directly related to the Saudi Arabian government? Would it be usable for its coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Similar to Arab News, but they are widely cited in other reliable sources, including its coverage in the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, I get 1,795 articles in JSTOR, some of them covering al Arabiya but most of them citing them. I would put them after The National and al Jazeera and Arab News personally. nableezy - 02:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Nableezy. Coverage of Israel/Palestine is good, but additional considerations would apply in relation to topics relating to Saudi ge o political interests. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

In general this appears to be a standard WP:NEWSORG, and generally reliable. I'd agree somewhat with BobFromBrockley in relation to reporting of Saudi Arabian interests. Looking through their reporting (on Saudi Arabian interests) it's not that it wasn't accurate, but that it was incomplete. It's a situation best solved but using it amongst other sources to ensure a proper POV is maintained. In wikispeak I guess not so much 'additional considerations apply', but instead a cautionary note about WP:BIAS in the specific area of Saudi Arabian interests. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

An additional considerations apply is most definitively needed. Can't be considered impartial given Saudi royal house ownership/control. XavierItzm (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliablity of Pinkvilla

Is Pinkvilla reliable for use in BLPs? (Further context at WP:RSN#Is SVG.com reliable?) — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 17:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

No. The articles proposed as references are tabloid gossip and the writer's byline underlines it's unseriousness and triviality. Banks Irk (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Please post links to the actual articles from Pinkvilla that you're referring to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested, here are the links:

• [64]
• [65]
• [66]

— Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 22:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Books by Anthroposophists are not RS

See [67].

Reason:

I would hope that nobody would seriously suggest using Steiner or any organ of the anthroposophy/Steiner-Waldorf walled garden, as a source for anything, even the colour of the sky. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Back in the day there was an arbcom decision about this[68] (since rescinded). Anthropologist publications are reliable for what they say, but their use should be limited to when it's necessary to give a brief exposition of Steiner's ideas which must (NPOV) be contextualized with reputable, rational, secondary sources. Bon courage (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

When you say Anthropologist publications are reliable for what they say, but their use should be limited}, do you mean to refer to anthroposophist publications? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The specific edit above [69] deals not with writings by Steiner, but with writings by other authors about Steiner, for example a book by Daniel Nicol Dunlop. They are biography books. They may be RS or not, depending on specific author and context. For example, something like "Steiner was an admirer and assiduous reader of Brentano" could be a correct statement and reliably sourced. No need to label all of them. My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I think anything from within the anthroposophist milieu would fall afoul of WP:FRIND. It's like scientology, Bon courage (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with the caveat that its like religions in general and not just scientology. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Citing someone who was a priest on the subject of their interactions with other priests and even on religion may be appropriate, depending on sources and context. Being a priest/an anthroposophy supporter/a communist/etc does not automatically disqualify anyone as a source. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree; sources closely affiliated with a political party/religion/philosophy/cult/whatever can be cited in the "about self/what we think/what we believe" realm. And some of the tags did seem a bit over the top, like tagging (paraphrasing)"Steiner preferred x English translation of the book title over y translation." Banks Irk (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I take it, from a quick survey of the tags, is that the authors and publishers for the tagged sources are all associated/affiliated with Anthroposophy . Banks Irk (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Guy does appear to have correctly identified the issue here: a walled garden. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yup, generally speaking present-day professional philosophers do not read Steiner's books. There are two reasons for it:

1. He declared that he is clairvoyant, and published what many see to be "occult ramblings";
2. He belongs to the German Idealism, which was out of fashion in the 20th century; it is true there were and still are neo-kantians and neo-hegelians, but German Idealism was/is essentially over.

That's why his philosophical books are generally speaking only read by Anthroposophists, people from the cultic milieu, and religion scholars specialized in Western esotericism. Hence the ordeal of walled garden. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• The issue is technically WP:FRIND more than WP:RS, but there are also clear WP:RS issues. I definitely don't think that Temple Lodge Publishing, which describes itself as publishers of quality books on modern spirituality, inspired by the work of Rudolf Steiner and his spiritual science, Anthroposophy, is a reliable publisher - they're effectively either a vanity press or WP:SELFPUB depending on how you look at it, but they certainly grant no reliability. The other things seem to be likewise SELFPUB and shouldn't be cited directly either. --Aquillion (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Working paper by Dan Ciuriak

See: Ciuriak, Dan (4 August 2022). "At What Cost? The Economic and Human Costs of Russia's Invasion of Ukraine". www.cdhowe.org. Retrieved 2023-10-07.

This paper is an effort to quantify in monetary terms the cost of the invasion. It is described as a working paper. At pages 11-12, it would make an estimate of the civilian casualties based on some broad-brush assumptions which it then uses to assert a dollar value attributable to these casualties. It is an economics paper that would attempt to estimate the cost of the war as a dollar figure between $ 9 - 14 x 1012, where the cost of civilian casualties is estimated at $ 0.059 - 0.126 x 10¹² (ie less than one percent of the total cost estimated). The validity or otherwise of the assumptions used to estimate the civilian casualties has no significant impact on the accuracy of the total monetary value determined, which itself has a range of ± 20%.

My understanding of a working paper is that itis one intended to elicit peer opinion and not one which has been peer reviewed.

1. Is this paper a WP:RS?
2. Given WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, is it reasonable to rely on the estimate of casualties made therein in reporting the civilian casualties arising from the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Cinderella157 (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• As you say, it is just a working paper, awaiting review. Although CDHowe is a reliable source the working paper is the author's unreviewed opinion. If this passes peer review, I would still only use it as a source with attribution. But at this preliminary point, it should not be used as a source.Banks Irk (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agree - at this stage the best you can do with it in my opinion is to consider it a primary source for the opinion of the author (i.e. Dan Ciuriak). But that is not helping much I guess. Arnoutf (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  I also agree with this position. I will grant that if the author is widely acknowledged as a SME then perhaps their opinion would be DUE (with attribution) but that should be a fairly high bar. It's certainly better to wait for this paper to get published. Also, if it doesn't get published perhaps that's a sign that reviewers weren't happy with the result. Springee (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Since it has been published by CD Howe and SSRN, and cited elsewhere,[70][71] I think that this could be used with attribution. Certainly if there is no better estimate available, it is useful as identifying costs and an estimate of their orders of magnitude. The author was also published by FP on the subject.[72] The author gives a range of estimates and discusses the assumptions, so the work can be peer checked. But note that it’s over a year old.  —Michael Z. 18:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Mzajac, just to clarify, the aim/purpose of the paper is to quantify the cost of the war in monetary terms and it would be suitable as an attributed primary source in that context, with the usual caveats and noting the age of the source (which makes it somewhat dated)? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• It isn't RS, and it also seems to fall foul of Crystal Ball, as it is assuming values that we can not calculate yet. So it is valuable only for the scholar's opinion. It is probably WP:UNDUE to include this scholar's opinion until such time as it is published by a reliable source. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  You’re saying C. D. Howe Institute is not reliable? Based on what?

  Not sure what you mean by “assuming values,” but no, WP:CRYSTAL is a guideline for Wikipedia editors, not for experts. “Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field maSSRN asy be included.” Meteorologists are allowed to predict weather, engineers to predict strength of structures, economists to make economic forecasts, and so on, and we are allowed to report what they write in reliable sources. But did the source in question even actually do that?

  ”It is valuable only for the scholar's opinion.” Yes, exactly: an expert opinion, presented with premises, data, and calculations, extensively referenced, and published by a research institute. An exemplary WP:2ARY.  —Michael Z. 14:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

fwiw we treat SSRN as a reliable source elsewhere on the page. It isn't one of the sources that I ran past this board when I went through the article references, but isn't reliability primarily conveyed by the publisher? And the level of verification that may have occurred? We're doing recursive reliabilitive ty again, which is actually a good thing as long as we remember that that's what we're doing.

If SSRN is considered an expert for this purpose then the article is RS, as the sort of think tank that SSRN seems to be would have vetted the author when they either hired him or accepted the article. If SSRN is questionable as an RS, then this source wouldn't be a good reference. I don't think attribution is needed if SSRN is definitely an RS, but eh {{Russian invasion of Ukraine]] is fairly cautious about declarative statements especially the casualty numbers.Elinruby (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

PS the age is an issue but the cumulative number of casualties is never going to go *down* and because of Mariupol etc civilian casualties are almost unknowable but everyone says that they are much much highter than official confirmed fatalities Elinruby (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit inclined to invoke WP:NODEADLINES and WP:NOTNEWS. The article is a working paper awaiting review, but the publisher did decide to publish it, and the author is clearly a qualified expert and the publication an academic source. So, yeah, from a RSN approach alone, we could easily say, that, "In an unreviewed working paper by Ciuriak published by CDHowe in 2022, he estimated...." But, as is said above, those numbers are just preliminary estimates that have not been reviewed, and which would almost certainly be different as of today, and which will continue to change for the forseeable future. For those reasons, I'd be inclined to not cite this source at this point in time. But, that is getting outside of the scope of RSN. Banks Irk (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Part of the question here is whether it is reliable in context for reporting casualties when it is an economic paper for estimating the monetary cost of the war? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2023 (U

What would you suggest, Cinderella? Elinruby (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It may be considered a primary source for the authors opinion of the monetary cost of the war (with attribution), which is the primary purpose of the paper. This would tend to reflect the consensus of comments here. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Whut? It is a primary source on the “analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources”? That’s literally our definition of a WP:SECONDARY source.  —Michael Z. 14:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

As others agree, as a working paper, it is inherently unreviewed and not a secondary source. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of K. K Publications

Is New Dimensions of Indian Historiography. a reliable source? It was published by K. K Publications; I am not familiar about this. Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no familiarity with Indian history, but based on a quick look: No ISBN for the linked book, title in comic sans, publisher's website lists no company officers or editors by name, I can't find the linked book the publisher's website, publisher appears to be a bookseller first and publisher second, publisher is not listed in any of the academic publication venue lists I have access to, publisher's name is easily confusable to a subsidiary of Western Publishing. While none of these are evidence of non-reliability per se, I'm not really seeing anything to establish credibility either.

If this is being referenced for something non-controversial, surely there are better sources that could be used, and if the claim is controversial/exceptional, then I wouldn't find this a very confidence-inspiring source (see WP:ECREE). Ljleppan (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The book cites Wikipedia. Not WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Airmail, scandal articles ?

Source: Hannah Ghorashi; George Pendle. "A Swedish Conwoman, An Indian Prince, And a Grift Gone Terribly Wrong". Air Mail. Retrieved 16 October 2023. [https://airmail.news/issues/2023-10-14/the-grift-the-prince-and-the-twist]

Articles: Airmail and Amar Singh (art dealer)

Content:

1) On Amar Singh (art dealer)

Only article used to verify entire 'Controversy' section of wiki (below section linked to this source). This is the only section in the whole wiki without more than one source. Since I am new to this, I don't think it reads perfectly as NPOV?

Extended content

"== Controversy == On 14 October 2023, Singh was accused by Air Mail of using threatening and misogynistic language in phone-call recordings with a former partner, who, Singh claimed, had lied about her identity and cheated on him. In August 2023, Singh made contact with journalist Hannah Ghorashi to tell the story of a relationship he had with a young Swedish woman named Liza-Johanna Holgersson, who, Singh claimed, had lied about her identity and cheated on him. During her research for the piece, Ghorashi received three phone-call recordings from Liza, purportedly involving Liza and Singh, of an ostensibly threatening and misogynistic nature. In the alleged recordings, a man is heard to call the girl a "fat bitch" and an "anorexic cunt", asking her "do you think you even rank in the top 50" of "the most beautiful girl[s] I've been with"?", and threatening "if you hang up on me I'm going to make moves against your family" and "a war is going to begin". The man threatens to turn an article he is assisting journalists with, into "an assassination" against the woman in the recording, and that as a consequence she will be locked out of "Spain, Italy, Germany" as well as the UK and the USA, but "maybe some African countries [she could] go to". The man ended by saying "I need respect, worship, and glory after your abuse and you're not providing it". Singh initially refused to comment when questioned by journalists about the voice recordings, later claiming that they had been produced by "A.I.". Digital forensics expert Alfred Demirjian reported with a 'reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there was a 87.2% likelihood that the recordings were of Singh, his professional opinion on the recordings being produced by A.I was “bullshit". Singh's lawyer, Timothy Drukker of Fishman Brand Stone, stated that the recordings were "not of Mr Singh", while a cease and desist letter from Liza's representative "Johan Stadth" of "Fjällman Juridik", transpired to be a fake e-mail from someone seemingly trying to impersonate the Gothenburg-based law firm Fjällmans Juridik, sent from a domain that had been registered on 29 September 2023 - the day the fake email was sent. The genuine law firm Fjällmans Juridik said that there was no one working at their firm by the name of Johan Stadth. An apparent non-disclosure agreement (NDA) between Singh and Liza, seen by journalists, stated that Liza was "not allowed to release any recordings of Kanwar Amar Jit Singh into the public domain or private domain", and that if Singh broke his part of the NDA, namely that he would not pursue any member of Liza's family, then Liza would be entitled to any painting by Joan Mitchell within his collection.Singh later asserted that the story about him provided to journalists was fictitious research for a movie plot entitled "Thirst for Fiction", however Singh has been accused of having attempted to bribe a female journalist on two occasions, and utilised lawyers, in an apparent attempt to quash the story. Singh told journalists that a book stolen by Liza from his apartment in August 2023 was a signed first-edition of Truman Capote's Breakfast at Tiffany's which had cost him nearly $10,000 at auction, however journalists believe the receipt they were shown by Singh as evidence of this purchase may have actually pertained to an unsigned first-edition bought at Swann Galleries in New York City for $700. Singh claims that the stories provided to Air Mail (which included an official Metropolitan Police report about the theft of a book from Singh's address on 11 August 2023) were all research for a film proposal entitled "Thirst for Fiction" to "test the elasticity of truth in the digital age". Singh has been accused of attempting to bribe Ghorashi on two occasions in relation to the publication of the story, claims which he denies.Singh accused Air Mail of being a "white led newspaper" with a "racist and homophobic agenda". Singh is alleged to have claimed on Instagram that he donated a painting by British-Liberian artist Lina Iris Viktor to the "Smithsonian Museum" in Washington, D.C., however according to journalists the Smithsonian Institution had no record of the painting being in their collections, and the artist's studio declined to comment. Singh is also alleged to have claimed on Instagram that he donated $10,000 to nonprofit 'Art at a Time Like This', however according to journalists the organisation in question claimed that "there wasn't a donation from Singh", but rather he had helped to facilitate a donation. Some journalists have questioned if Amar has donated art to museums. October 2023, journalists were unable to find evidence that his donations totalled $5 million. According to Airmail in 2020 it owed creditors $435,192."

2) On Airmail (magazine) page

I don't feel the addition below adds anything to the wiki page's notability. It stands out, possibility an advertisement for the writers/parties involved?

"In October 2023, Air Mail published their longest investigation yet, titled The Grift, the Prince, and the Twist [1] written by Hannah Ghorashi and George Pendle, involving Amar Singh and Liza-Johanna Holgersson"

Any help and more experienced eyes on this would be appreciated. GlasgowGoatHerder (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• AirMail is run by two renown and experienced journalists with long established reputations for accuracy and integrity. It is a reliable source, even for a BLP. (I collapsed the blockquote as it is just too long; a link would be more than sufficient.) Banks Irk (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

References

www.burgasmuseums.bg

Is www.burgasmuseums.bg, the website of the Regional Hiistorical Museum of Burgas, reliable as a source for the year of death of one of its employees? In memoriam post is here. Article is Ivan Karayotov. I realise the museum website is a primary source. For what it's worth, WorldCat also supports the year of death. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

www.burgasmuseums.bg would be reliable for that purpose. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Agreed. This source is fine for this content. An obit closely related to the subject is often problematic for content about the deceased or for notability, but not a problem for date of death. FYI, I don't think this is a primary source in this context; a death certificate would be a primary source. Banks Irk (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd say it was acceptable as a source, unless there are specific reasons to question the date. The museum is clearly of significance, and it seems unlikely they'd get something like that wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all. Tacyarg (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

cmswire.com

This website is used 212 times on Wikipedia; however, I question if it is considered a reliable source. While the about page of the site does say it has editors, I do not see an editorial policy and it also says that it has over 400 contributors ("contributor community"). This makes me feel the site is accepting more guest posts than actual written and reviewed stories by its own staff. Only discussion I see on this is from 2012 and it isn't very clear. Hoping for more opinions on this. CNMall41 (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Are Hamas and Gaza ministry numbers reliable?

I submit they are not. Hamas is a terrorist group that falsifies statements and information, such as blaming Israeli airstrikes for the hospital attack, etc. I submit that we should consider Hamas' casualty numbers generally unreliable for factual information, and must always be attributed. Is that reasonable, or am I going too far? Andre🚐 17:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this something we're actually doing? Diffs? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

2023_Israel–Hamas_war#cite_note-19 see also Talk:Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#Time_to_start_saying_it_was_a_Palestinian_rocket? Andre🚐 18:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

So the issue you have is with other sources citing Hamas and Gaza ministry numbers not with us actually using them as sources? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, these cites from the infobox are directly to "Per Palestinian Health Ministry" and "Per Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry". I think that seems weird. Andre🚐 18:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

They are not... I think you're confusing the notes with the citation. The citation is to this AJ article [73]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

That just attributes it also to the Gaza/Hamas ministry. AJ is reliable, but are these numbers? Andre🚐 19:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Who cares? Wikipedia is about what is verifiable, not what is true. If the source attributes so do we, but we don't get to second guess the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem in this case is that it's in an infobox, which makes attribution difficult. This isn't the first time this has come up (current conflicts almost always ultimately come from the parties in the conflict and are attributed to them in the secondary sources) - I'm surprised there's no guideline about it somewhere. There's currently a footnote with attribution but I'm not sure that's enough - perhaps the casualty figures should have (per Gaza’s Ministry of Health) in small text. But we'd have to do it for both sides because the Israeli causality figures are also attributed in the sources, which say things like "IDF says" and the like. The inability to put in-text attribution in infoboxes is a constant problem, but it's a particular problem for casualty figures because the infobox seems designed for a straight "unequivocal fact" number and for current conflicts it's more difficult. I'd oppose attributing only one side unless the sources themselves are more clearly skeptical of that side, though, since that would carry the implication that those figures are disputed or less reputable and we'd need sourcing to back that up. --Aquillion (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Aquillion, as usual, an insightful addition to the discussion, and exactly what makes me uneasy. Andre🚐 01:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

With attribution, they should be treated just like any other involved claim. Curbon7 (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

There's no RS issue with citing a mainstream news source, say the NYT, that "Hamas claims X casualties in Y incident". We wouldn't ordinarily source the numbers directly to a mere press release by any side in any conflict. Banks Irk (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the attribution is necessary. The numbers provided by belligerents are often manipulated, and in case of Gaza there is no political opposition or independent media to challenge them (see World_Press_Freedom_Index#Rankings_and_scores_by_country_or_places). Alaexis_¿question? 19:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Both Israeli and Hamas casualty claims should be distrusted and always attributed to the relevant party. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

This is an example of WP:FALSEBALANCE. A senior member of Hamas said that 260 partygoers were killed at Re'im because they looked like soldiers and does not admit to killing civilians. Alaexis_¿question? 20:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Where is the false balance? Neither side in a war should be trusted as a primary source... Neither the Israelis or Hamas is going to be a trustworthy source in this context. That doesn't mean that one side isn't more untrustworthy than the other, it just means that neither is trustworthy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Ditto, this is exactly the point I was trying to make. Just because Hamas blatantly lies doesn't mean the word of the government of Israel should be treated as gospel. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that there is a trustworthy/untrustworthy dichotomy but rather a spectrum and Israel and Hamas are quite far apart on this spectrum. Anyway, this discussion is about Hamas, so this is probably offtopic. Alaexis_¿question? 20:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not false equivalency to reflect, with proper citation and attribution, conflicting casualty reports, especially when there is no independent verification in a conflict. As for the linked Economist article, the way to report it, assuming it met WP:DUE would be to include the article's incredulity toward the interviewee's claims. Banks Irk (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Something everyone should ask here is whether the Palestinian Health Ministry is the same with Hamas? This is something I don't know neither. Obviously they are influenced by the political and militant entity running the region but does this equate Hamas and the Gaza health services? In the past, the Palestinian Health Ministry figures were mostly even with the UN figures. During the 2014 Gaza war, PHM claimed that 70% of the deaths were civilians while the UN concluded that 65% were. While PHM is likely to inflate its figures, it should be more or less accurate. Ecrusized (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza Health Ministry is a part of Hamas administration. According to HRW, Hamas authorities detained opponents and critics for their peaceful expression and tortured some in their custody. Saying that the health ministry is influenced by Hamas is an understatement, I would say. Alaexis_¿question? 20:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the relation between the Health Ministry being part of Hamas administration and Hamas torturing their opponents. Ecrusized (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• All Gaza ministries belong to Hamas. Is Hamas known "for fact-checking and accuracy"? No, hardly (agree with others above). This is a "generally unreliable source for factual information". Another source that cites Hamas numbers does not make them any better because they are the same numbers. The government of Israel, on the other hand, usually provides more reliable numbers, such as 1,400+ their people killed, for example. Why? Because they do have serious fact-checking procedures. They do check who was killed prior to notifying relatives. Such numbers are a subject of update of course. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think this is an important question and I think I agree. Andre🚐 21:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

This depends on specific country. For example, IDF openly publish the number of their own casualties, and they are reliable numbers. Ukraine consider such numbers during the war a state secret and does not publish at all. Russian MoD completely invents numbers for general public/publications. They are outright "fake". They keep real numbers for internal usage (also a secret), but these numbers were leaked a couple of times. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The IDF does not openly publish the number of their own casualties while the war is ongoing, what you're seeing is information warfare (the real figures are state secrets). You generally need to wait for their big parliamentary after-conflict reports for that. Thats better than most too, we still don't know for sure how many casualties the Chinese took in Korea or Vietnam. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

IDF has lied many times in the past as well, if we apply this to Palestinian authorities we will need to evaluate IDF statements as well along the same lines. Ashvio (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Please provide sources for that assertion Andre🚐 22:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

One example of many: IDF originally claimed Shireen was shot by Palestinians, and later admitted they lied and it was caused by an IDF soldier.

Original Assertion: https://www.timesofisrael.com/pa-probe-claims-idf-deliberately-shot-journalist-as-she-fled-israel-a-blatant-lie/

Later admission of guilt: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/18/upsetting-shireen-abu-akleh-family-rejects-israels-sorry Ashvio (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if I give you that one, it's not really the same thing. I'm talking about a table of casualties in an infobox that have the appearance of official info. Andre🚐 22:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the harm of not including any information from Palestinian civil officials outweighs the harm of potentially incorrect figures. When the figures are disputed, we should provide alternative figures from other sources as we are already. In most historical wikipedia pages for example, deaths are reported in the articles as claimed from both sides as well as other parties who have made estimates. Ashvio (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan, I would have thought that anything coming from them would have to be attributed in any case as we'd be quoting a primary source, it would be WP:OR otherwise. Am I misunderstanding your question? TarnishedPath^talk 00:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a good point too. But take a look at the infobox as it stands. Andre🚐 00:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The figures on 2023 Israel–Hamas war come from "The Palestinian Information Center." A quick google says that "The Palestinian Information Center PIC is an independent Palestinian organization, established first in Arabic on 1st December 1997." The link you provided 2023_Israel–Hamas_war#cite_note-19 is empty and doesn't provide any figures. I don't see why it's necessary. The figures provided are quoted to the secondary source "The Palestinian Information Center." TarnishedPath^talk 00:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian Information Center is a Hamas outlet, I thought. Andre🚐 00:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything to that effect doing web searches. TarnishedPath^talk 01:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That's what it says at Palestinian_Information_Center#cite_note-2 Andre🚐 01:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I was just reading that. Yep the opinion of some Israeli scholars is that it is a gateway for Hamas propoganda. That doesn't make it so. Also that's attributed and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. TarnishedPath^talk 01:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Have you been able to locate editorial polices and staff for The Palestinian Information Center? I haven't. TarnishedPath^talk 01:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm still looking into it, but let me know if you find anything. I had assumed it was just basically a Hamas outlet. But I'll try to find something more solid than the opinion of a few scholars. Andre🚐 01:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

See below. They have a declared bias. Just because they're not necessarily a Hamas outlet doesn't mean they can't be biased. TarnishedPath^talk 01:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah... so. they should be attributed, yes? More clearly in the infobox. Andre🚐 01:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you'd probably need discussion around that. WP:RS says sources can be biased and still be usable. TarnishedPath^talk 09:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That is why I started the discussion. Andre🚐 17:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Your discussion is about "Are Hamas and Gaza ministry numbers reliable?". I think you need to ask the question "Is The Palestinian Information Center's casualty figures reliable in regards to the current conflict?" Two different questions. TarnishedPath^talk 23:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That is the question I was trying to ask. Thank you for asking it better. Andre🚐 23:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Well now everyone else in this thread is talking about figures from Hamas, which isn't exactly useful. If there was any sort of consensus which was formed it wouldn't be applicable to the article in which the sources are actually something else. TarnishedPath^talk 23:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

A consensus is a consensus, but I don't see one forming anyway. I've learned a lot from this thread already. My question was the question that I asked. It was answered in a number of different ways. You've offered a more specific question. Perhaps, we should start that as a new thread in the future. Though not right this minute. Andre🚐 23:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Found their policies here. TarnishedPath^talk 01:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that clear attribution should be made to both/all sides. I agree with Aquillion, Hemiauchenia, and Horse Eye's Back. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The idea that in a war we should only be favoring one sides statistics is directly at odds with what WP:NPOV requires. All significant views with weight as given to them by reliable sources. Reliable sources treat the numbers reported from Gaza ministries and give them weight. The idea that Hamas, the government of Gaza, does not represent a significant view in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war strikes me as bizarre. You are basically suggesting we not include Palestinian casualties and only include Israeli ones. How does that square with NPOV at all to anybody? And to the point, when reliable sources cite something that means they give it weight. We do not decide we dislike the weight they give a source and then say oh we're just going to ignore that. nableezy - 00:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Who suggested not to include them? I just said they needed clearer attribution. Andre🚐 01:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

they are attributed. What you are suggesting is that we treat Israeli figures as gospel and Palestinian ones as assumed lies. nableezy - 02:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I said that either. I just asked whether these figures in the infobox were suitably attributed. If there is a concern about the Israeli numbers, please raise it. Is someone concerned about those numbers? Andre🚐 02:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Your original question doesn't even mention the infobox, if that is what this was about why didn't you mention it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That's where the numbers are. I asked if the numbers are reliable. Then I provided a link to the footnote cited in the infobox. Andre🚐 18:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You only provided a link after being challenged... If this was about that specific infobox this whole time then your original post is extremely misleading due to the omission of context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I said are Hamas numbers reliable, then you asked for diffs, then I provided the link to the footnote in the infobox. That is all we've been discussing this whole time. Andre🚐 18:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You asked a general question... If this was not actually about the general question and was meant to address a specific content issue then IMO you tried to hoodwink us. You can't omit context like that. Why did you feel that it was appropriate to omit the context here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I asked the question and I provided 2 links to different situations, and I also put notifications on those 2 pages. Your question is meaningless. The context was provided. It's also obvious. Andre🚐 18:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

There is not a single link in your OP. There is no context in the OP whatsoever. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye, I don't know what you want me to say. Yes, my first post didn't include the links, and you asked for them, so I provided them. The way it works here is that people do things, other people provide feedback or additional questions, and then improvements are made. Andre🚐 18:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

So you were not planning to ever provide that context unless challenged? Yeah... Thats extremely misleading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I was planning to provide anything that discussion led to. Last I checked, we were still allowed to start general discussions here. Those are 2 places the discussion led to. There are undoubtedly others. I'm still not sure what your problem is. Andre🚐 18:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Then I'm confused, was your OP not in response to that infobox? I'm not asking where the discussion led, I'm asking about the context which led to the question being asked which is supposed to be disclosed when you bring a question here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Once again, I noticed that in a few places, 2 of which I linked when you asked, we were using the Hamas numbers in a way that appears pretty factual and isn't clearly attributed, in my view, but I simply asked a general question about whether the numbers are reliable. Nothing wrong with that. Then you said, are we actually doing that, and I provided the places where we are. I fail to see the issue. Andre🚐 18:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Why omit that context from the OP? My question was only necessary because the question was misleading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Once again, the question wasn't misleading. You asked for more information and I clarified. I don't know what else to tell you. That is the whole story. Andre🚐 18:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Why did you choose to omit that context from the OP? Did you just forget and not actually make a choice? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, I thought it would be obvious what I was talking about. Andre🚐 18:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

In hindsight do you realize that it was not? It wasn't even apparent or hinted at, let alone obvious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Um, Horse Eye. You're a good editor. We usually get along. Why are you reading me the riot act on this? I thought it was pretty obvious. In hindsight, yes, it was not obvious to you, and that's why I provided the info. What are you getting at? Yes, Hamas is a terrorist group, the IDF is an occupying army, both numbers should be attributed, we've established that? Is there a problem still? Last I checked, the policy does allow general questions here. It was not misleading, intentionally or otherwise; anyone should be able to understand that the current war in Gaza is the event that has casualty numbers, and that they are on several pages. I'm sorry that I didn't provide the link, but like I said, I thought people would be able to figure out. Andre🚐 18:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm reading you the riot act because I feel hoodwinked, this is one of the most misleading questions I've ever seen asked at RSN and I'm still a bit in shock that it came from an editor as august as you... Looking at your recent edits you appear to have gotten caught up in the current whirlwind around Hamas and Israel, perhaps the intensity of those interactions is impairing your judgement and you need to take a break from the topic? Note that if I did not have immense respect for both you and the difficultly of editing in around an ongoing conflict I would have brought this to ANI. I wasn't expecting a big fight from you, I was expecting "Oops my bad yeah thats not what I meant to communicate, will do better next time" and to move on. Will leave this here, I think we've made the progress we can under the current conditions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I was not intending it to be misleading. Like you said, the issue has been on my mind. I assumed everyone would know which articles I meant. I was not intending to make you feel hoodwinked. I always appreciate your feedback, and I'll try better next time to include all the relevant content so the post is less vague. Andre🚐 19:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

We should use the same rules we use for any self-published piece of information, which is to say:

• We shouldn't use Hamas numbers directly from Hamas.
• If a reliable source publishes Hamas numbers with attribution ("Hamas says there were X casualities"), we should also use those numbers with attribution.
• If a reliable source publishes Hamas numbers without attribution ("There were X casualties"), we should also use those numbers without attribution.

I'm generally not a fan of cut-outs for specific sources, especially not when the general rule here works just fine. Loki (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Both sides' casualty claims should be attributed. Hamas has a history of exaggerating numbers and Israel can't actually know the number of casualties on the ground from air strikes. So attribution of numbers should be used for both. Silverseren^C 18:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree if and only if the source we're using for those numbers also attributes them. Which they do in every case I've seen so far, so in practice we should attribute. But if the NYT or some other reliable source is willing to take Hamas' statistics at face value, it is not our job to second-guess them. Loki (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Every sources Ive seen attributes both Israeli and Palestinian numbers to the agency reporting them. Thats it, thats all they do. So should we. nableezy - 23:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. There are numerous organizations and media (Hamas, Russian Ministry of Defense, etc.) that are known to promote falsehoods and outright lies, like inventing numbers that have noting to do with reality, etc. Can we cite their claims with explicit attribution, just as some news sources do? Yes, sure. But should we cite them in a manner that implies they might be telling the truth, for example in infoboxes, even if we do explicit attribution? No. Because it means misinforming the reader. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I have to agree with MVBW Andre🚐 17:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  The Israeli government and the IDF are among those organizations known to promote falsehoods and outright lies. Eg no we had nothing to do with Shireen Abu Akleh being shot to death. Or no there was Hezbollah firing rockets near a residential compound that we bombed. Or no there were riots when we shot this child in the head. Or there were violent demonstrations when we shot this mentally handicapped person in the back of the head. Or or or. There is zero basis to pretend that any of the sides here is an honest and unbiased reporter on literally anything. And as sources give the numbers roughly the same treatment so should we. nableezy - 17:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed with nableezy. I'd even go further to say that no side in an active armed conflict can ever be considered a reliable source by themselves, IMO. Loki (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment According to Save the Children organization, over 2,000 children have been killed in Gaza since the outbreak of hostilities.[74] The figure is consistent with that of the Palestinian Health Ministry, which gives another reason not to deprecated Hamas affiliated sources. Ecrusized (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• WAPO Oct 24: "Why news outlets and the U.N. rely on Gaza’s Health Ministry for death tolls" "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Good link to share. very relevant. Andre🚐 17:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Biden. It should be noted the prez of the US said he has "no confidence" in the numbers reported by Hamas' ministry of Health. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Biden is a politician and the US is a close ally of Israel, most RS disagree with him, WAPO above and:

  Reuters 27 Oct "Despite Biden's doubts, humanitarian agencies consider Gaza toll reliable Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  AP 26 Oct "EXPLAINER: What is Gaza's Ministry of Health and how does it calculate the war's death toll?" "The United Nations and other international institutions and experts, as well as Palestinian authorities in the West Bank — rivals of Hamas — say the Gaza ministry has long made a good-faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions."The numbers may not be perfectly accurate on a minute-to-minute basis," said Michael Ryan, of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Program. "But they largely reflect the level of death and injury." In previous wars, the ministry’s counts have held up to U.N. scrutiny, independent investigations and even Israel’s tallies."

  Time 26 Oct"News outlets and international organizations and agencies have long relied on Israeli and Palestinian government sources for casualty figures. While they do so partly because they are unable to independently verify these figures themselves, it’s also because these statistics have proven accurate in the past."

  Gdn 27 Oct "Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry? Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  And only 28% of voting Americans had confidence in Biden in a recent poll, so there's no confidence in Biden's lack of confidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Heh. Can't really say I disagree with you! ;-) XavierItzm (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• The Wall Street Journal, 28 Oct 2023: The U.S. government says the Hamas figures can’t be trusted. Seems pretty pretty dispositive. XavierItzm (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Why? The US is a party to the conflict. Would you think it's dispositive if Hamas said US figures couldn't be trusted? Loki (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  That the same government that told us about weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist? TarnishedPath^talk 07:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Radio France (the French BBC/NPR): "a figure: 7,326 Palestinians dead. A figure provided by a single source, the Hamas Ministry of Health. [...] What crystallized the mistrust was undoubtedly the controversy surrounding the hospital in Gaza struck on October 17 [...] no information is published on the causes of death, or even on the proportion of combatants among those killed. And humanitarian associations are not able to confirm this data. Are people now going to say France is also party to the conflict? XavierItzm (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  The ministry's final figure was 471 - the initial over-estimate of nearly 500 was explained thus "“We had a uniquely hard time because the bodies were so dismembered, body parts were everywhere,” Health Ministry official Mehdat Abbas said."

  As estimates by belligerents go, the GMH has historically been remarkably accurate, despite Biden and Israel having some magic intuition about numbers which they could not possibly assess from a distance. GMH do not provide figures on combatants/civilians because with un-uniformed combatants it would be impossible to assess in many circumstances (they do issue figures for gender and age, which would exclude a sizable percentage from being combatants) - besides they might think that it was no business of a health ministry to record such a matter. Name, age, gender, ID number and cause of death are all recorded as a matter of routine and have been made public. So unless GMH are faking ID numbers and death certification, it would be impossible for GMH to intentionally inflate numbers. Pincrete (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  The Radio France article doesn't question the GMH figures - though they would have to give some reason for doing so and that would require coming up with credible alternative figures. The article is about the debate as to whether the figures should be trusted, as such it mentions the arguments for and against doing so. Selective quoting can yield any result you want? Pincrete (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's a clear misinterpretation. The article does state that France's NPR-equivalent "mistrust" of the Hamas Ministry of Health has become "crystallized." And that's the answer to Radio France's headline: «Are the figures on the number of victims in Gaza reliable?» XavierItzm (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The misinterpretation is yours; France Television (your source) are not saying they distrust the figures, or that the numbers are generally distrusted; they are characterizing the U.S.'s statements. (And to your point about France being unbiased: France, like the U.S., declared its strong support for Israel). Le Monde, a French newspaper of record (which France Television is not) quotes a World Health Organization representative decrying the inaccuracy claims as "cynical". Note that this is a different WHO official from the one quoted by Reuters, who also says the figures are pretty good. DFlhb (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Update/Comment: The Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh has now confirmed the Gaza Health Ministry death toll after having verified the names and identity numbers (see here), so all this talk of the numbers coming only from Hamas, and not anywhere else, well, that assertion is dead. The PA, which is not an active combatant, and which absolutely hates Hamas, has confirmed the numbers based on the extremely exhaustive list compiled by the Gaza Health Ministry. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources

I figured I'd add relevant links here

• Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry? discusses the MoH methodology and goes into more details than others (e.g., immediately reported numbers are less reliable)
• Death tolls from Hamas-run health ministry are not trustworthy, former Reuters chief warns - pretty much what the title says
• Why news outlets and the U.N. rely on Gaza’s Health Ministry for death tolls contain the opinion of HRW's Omar Shakir that the numbers are mostly reliable
• EXPLAINER: What is Gaza's Ministry of Health and how does it calculate the war's death toll? discusses the methodology and shortcomings (e.g., the distinction between military and civilian losses) Alaexis_¿question? 11:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

There are more immediately above. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of PanAm Post

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

---

What is the reliability of PanAm Post?

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

Previous discussion from May 2020 here. NoonIcarus (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2/Cancel prior result: PanAm Post is currently under the third category at WP:RSP, based in a discussion from 2020, which has justified some removals that I wish to bring to the discussion:

• "Ex-Green Beret Behind Venezuela Raid Traveled to Colombia on Private Aircraft Linked to Chavismo". 28 May 2020. (removal) The article was used to reference the participation of businessman Franklin Durán in Operation Gideon, something already mentioned by reliable sources such as Associated Press and El Espectador.
• "Story Behind the Contract: How a Plan to Capture Maduro Was Devised and Scrapped". 28 May 2020. (removal) Overview of Operation Gideon with details covered by sources such as Associated Press, The Washington Post, and Vox
• "Chavista pollster admits Venezuelans want Maduro out of office". 21 March 2016. (removal) Cites a pollster, no reliability issues here either.

As stated by some of edit summaries, many of these facts are published by reliable sources, and in some cases, reliable sources have cited PanAm Post too. It's also worth nothing that months after the last RfC was closed, between August and September 2020, the arguably most troublesome editors of the newspaper left and started their own outlet, "El American": Orlando Avendaño (editor in chief), Vanessa Vallejo (co-editor in chief) and Emmanuel Rincón. The last one actually was mentioned in the opening of the last RfC, regarding his credentials. Since then, PanAm Post's editorial line has improved.

It's been three years since the last discussion at the noticeboard and the changes in the editorial board, and its worth revisiting the outlet's reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the previous discussion, but I'll take a look and come back here based on what I've found. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 18:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

As you have shown here, a lot of these topics are covered by more reliable sources. There is no reason to have a source like PanAm Post being used on the project. WMrapids (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't dismiss references or judge their reliability based on the availability of other sources, and the main issue is that this won't always be the case. PanAm Post has original reporting and valuable material that can be used for sourcing, with attribution, particularly interviews. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

If their original reporting is notable at all, it will most likely be reported by much more reliable sources. However, this site seems completely inappropriate for the project. WMrapids (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Cancel prior result because I think the earlier RfC's 4-way template was inappropriate and the consensus (4 out of 7) small. I ping the prior participants: Hippeus ReyHahn Jamez42 Horse Eye Jack Devonian Wombat ZiaLater Buidhe Barkeep49. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced that the rating should be changed.

  Bottom line, for controversial topics the use of breaking news sources especially those whose reputation has been questioned should be avoided. The events happened years ago, there should be some retrospective sources available that would obviate the use of sources like Pan Am Post. If some details have not been covered in retrospective sources, are they really wp:due? We're an encyclopedia, and trying to provide blow by blow detail is not usually the best way to cover a topic. (t · c) buidhe 19:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Note that Hippeus was WP:CUBL'd. Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  I indeed found that previous decision was wrongly justified. It was based on majority and not on arguments. Barely any sources were casted by those that favored the final results. I tried to contest the decision but the user that closed it decided against it. - ReyHahn (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Peter Gulutzan: Given choices on reliability, which decision would you make? WMrapids (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd decide to look at the piece of work itself and the creator and the publisher. WP:SOURCEDEF says: "Any of the three can affect reliability." The choices given in the 4-way template are only about the publisher. That's just one of the reasons for me to decide it was not appropriate. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3, as I stated in the prior RfC the PanAm Post has published unsubstantiated conspiracy theories accusing Bill Gates of attempting to control the world with vaccines, and publishes virulent opinion pieces under their "news" segment, several of which openly advocate for extreme levels of political violence against supporters of the Venezuelan government. If any fact within it is worth citing, there will be more reliable and reputable sources covering this fact. I note User:NoonIcarus's belief that PanAm's editorial standards have improved since several of its more problematic contributors left, but I do not believe this to be true. Literally within the past week they have published, under their "news" section (so these are not opinion pieces) Chilean government awards life pension to criminals of the outbreak which effectively slanders regular Chilean citizens as criminals for participating in the 2019–2022 Chilean protests and the resolutely silly With Petro, cocaine exports are aimed at replacing oil which provides information that as far as I can tell stands in total contrast to what every actually reliable source says on Colombia's cocaine market: see here for example. As such, the PanAm Post still publishes information that any reasonable editorial line would block as either potentially defamatory or just plain wrong, and it is clearly an unreliable source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll note that the first two articles that you're referring to currently cannot be found at the website:[75][76], apparently being retracted. At any rate, these descriptions appear to be misleading: they don't appear to be "accusing Bill Gates of attempting to control the world with vaccines", nor "advocating for violence against Venezuelan government supporters". --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, just to quickly provide Bloomberg's original report on Colombia's cocaine: Cocaine Is Set to Overtake Oil to Become Colombia’s Main Export. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Well there are still crazy pieces from the same author on the site [77] [78]. The latter is particularly funny now as it includes gems like

Today, while the industrial power of the major nations of the West is languishing and jobs are being destroyed every day, China’s industrial strength is flourishing, and even Wuhan will be back on its feet. On the other hand, the rest of the world seems to have no intention of lifting the quarantines any time soon. In countries like Spain, Italy, and the United States, there are hundreds and thousands of deaths counted every day.

And it seems they're not the only columnist there who publishes crazy stuff [79] That said, I'm reluctant to penalise a whole site just because they allow crazy columnists to publish on their site, at most it means we should exclude their columnists. The question is is the non-opinion part of their site reliable? I don't know, I'm not sure if it's worth looking into a great deal at least for the English part of the site consider it seems to be dead with all the content being from early 2021. The only recent thing seems to be this opinion piece which is slightly less crazy than the other stuff [80], but either way doesn't seem to suggest the English site is going to be useful going forward. I don't understand Spanish so cannot evaluate that portion of their site. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

NB, I see from your comments above that the person I'm referring to actually had a significant position in their news operation. That being the case, I would say there's no point even considering their English site, it had significant involvement from someone who doesn't seem trustworthy and seems to has died not that long after he and the others left. (Technically there might be a short time after, but it doesn't seem worth it for such a short period, and further it's unlikely everything immediately improved the moment they left.) I'll also go as far as to say although I cannot personal evaluate it that we shouldn't trust the Spanish portion from that time period either assuming he had the same level of involvement. So it's really only ~2020 to now that we should bother to consider. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

In those cases, opinion pieces are clearly distinguished from news articles. However, I want to clarify that I don't deny that issues remain with PanAm Post, which is the reason why I stand with Option 2, taking care of these specific cases while being able to use valuable content not found elsewhere else, such as interviews. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You can use a translator to take a look at the active Spanish side of the site, from what I can see there's still a right wing bias to the reporting but there is a marked improvement over their older content. I've compared articles on the site to similar reports by AP News and didn't notice any significant differences ([81] and [82]), though said articles were written by the EFE Agency so it may not reflect on PanAm as a whole. As per the rest of the Spanish articles not written by EFE, they seem reliable to me. Articles like this one that I looked over didn't raise any significant red flags for me.

To address the English side of the website, that side seems to be mostly abandoned (no) and contains the typical borderline insane culture war stuff that was previously mentioned by User:Nil Einne. Some of the authors of said articles, such as Raul Tortolero, still publish articles on the Spanish side, but he seems to only post opinion articles now based on what I can tell. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 16:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

To make a decision though, I'd say Option 2 for the Spanish side of PanAm Post, with extra consideration given towards opinion articles as that seems to be the only problematic part of the site I can see. Besides the English side of course, which I'll mark up to Option 4, as it seems to be mostly abandoned and contains problematic content as previously noticed by other editors. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 16:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Deauthorized: Please see what I found on the Spanish side of the website in this edit. WMrapids (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm very reluctant to use a machine translator when assessing a source for reliability especially when I don't understand the language at all. While machine translations especially for a pairing like Spanish to English are generally good enough that most of the time, they should not significantly change basic factual accuracy, they will often still lose context, nuance and tone and in complex circumstances to risk changing the meaning of stuff in misleading ways. For example while it's partly overt, this opinion column I linked above has an extreme conspiratorial tone pointing to how China is going to use COVID-19, which it wink wink suggests may have been made in a Wuhan lab, to their great advantage. [83] The overt stuff may make it through machine translation but there's a fair chance the extreme conspiratorial tone won't make it through machine translation and even if it does it would be impossible to be sure it was actually present in the original text. But the other issue is that I'm also very unlikely to use a source which I don't understand and require machine translation to cite something. At most I might find something and ask someone who understands to confirm it says what I think it says. Even if I'm just checking an existing citation, if it's very simple perhaps I'll trust machine translation but anything more complicated and I'll again likely seek help from someone who does understand it. So it's better that these people who will be using the source assess the reliability than me who won't. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that the tone of writing can be lost in translation. Perhaps somebody with a better understanding of Spanish than me can take a look at it, and if it turns out that there was something drastic I was missing due to the translation, then I'll reconsider. But for now, I'm standing by my previous decision. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Deauthorized: ReyHahn and I are native Spanish speakers, in case advice is needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: You can see the Spanish side of the website here. WMrapids (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As I said earlier, that piece is particularly funny since with the benefit of hindsight, I don't think anyone will agree much of what it suggested actually happened. And indeed while many countries COVID-19 strategies are widely criticised, China's one is rarely seen as a success now in virtually any area including economically that the column is talking about. Since whatever initial success they may have had with their zero COVID-19, it did start to harm them economically and it also became clear they had no good plan on a way forward. So instead ended up rapidly changing direction in a panic when public pressure began scare the party/government. And notably this rapid and unplanned about face largely due to public demands rather than specifics of the medical situation likely significantly harmed the one benefit of what they did, avoiding lives loss from COVID-19. And this from a country who's ability to plan ahead better than even most successful democracies has generally been a key point of pride. Of course the fact China persisted with extreme lockdowns required by their zero CVOID-19 strategy for so long is another thing which makes that piece funny with hindsight, since it's talking about how they're ending in China but it's unclear when they'll end in other parts of the world. Of course being wrong does not in itself impeach a journalist but when you're coming at things from an extreme conspiratorial angle and your conspiratorial proposal on what's going to happen turns out to be wrong basically every way, well then yes I think it speaks strongly against trusting you. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thank you for your comments. Do you have enough information to make a particular decision? WMrapids (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2/Cancel prior result: as already stated in previous RfC. It has been cited by reliable sources like WaPo, Reuters, WSJ, AP and BBC. Repeating myself: Forbes The 2020 Ranking Of Free-Market Think Tanks Measured By Social Media Impact, that described it as popular and with "solid reporting" on topics related to free market. Associated Press called PanamPost "a conservative online publication run by mostly Venezuelan exiles from Miami" in a piece that confirms PanamPost original investigation. I tried to contest the previous result here and now the results reads Some editors showed its use by other reliable sources (e.g. the AP) and suggested that only its opinion section was troubling., however it still argues that by "consensus" it affects their news coverage (it is unclear to me if this action allies WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). While some concerns have been indicated, I really think that in previous discussion most concerns were based on opinion articles and not on how others news sites describe the sources. Editorial standards are not the best but it is still a source that does their own reporting and retracts articles when possible. There is just not enough secondary sources to assert clear unreliability, we have much worse in that category.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3-4: The fact that the closer refused to revert the previous decision was a good and obvious choice. PanAm Post seems to be very similar to La Patilla in its extremist nature. Its efforts to baselessly attack left-wing governments is clear. And with the COVID-19 content disseminated by them, brought up by Devonian Wombat, it is clear that this source should remain generally unreliable at the very least.--WMrapids (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The articles that you're referring to were retracted. If anything, it demonstrates that PanAm Post has editorial oversight. The outlet should be judged by its current reliability, not the one in 2020. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

PanAm Post is another La Patilla, a Venezuelan extreme opposition website. They have cited Breitbart[84][85][86] and The Epoch Times[87] on numerous occasions for controversial allegations. This article pushes George Soros conspiracy theories about him creating "anarchy" through the US judicial system. Similar to La Patilla, PanAm Post also reposts information from questionable individuals criticizing immigration to the US (see more on this individual here). The editor-in-chief also described climate change science as a "political weapon". And all of these were posted on the main page of the Spanish website, which is as equally damning as their English website. Throw away the key on this one. WMrapids (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, so much for my optimism. Option 3-4 as per the above. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 15:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If La Patilla's RfC has shown anything, is that if PanAm Post is as reliable as La Patilla, then it should be in the second category, "Additional considerations". Under this category, all of the mentioned issues, such as caution in using the outlet for controversial topics, politics, or BLPs, can be addressed. For it to be in the third category, it must be demonstrated that it is generally unreliable, that it cannot be trusted for fact in most cases, and as I demonstrated with my vote with its factual reporting and retractions, this has not been demonstrated. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Well we can start on its writing on climate change on how fringe and unreliable it is. In this case, PanAm Post is even more extreme and unreliable. WMrapids (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3-4. The criticisms from the last RfC have not been addressed. These are:

-- "Much of their reporting has a strong right wing bias which often manifests itself as omitted information, poor sourcing, entertaining questionable scientific views, and sloppy reporting. Ownership is also secret which makes it impossible for us to determine whether this source is independent of the subjects it reports on".

-- "The PanAm Post is owned by PanAm Post LLC, but there is no information on who owns PanAm Post LLC, meaning that the site could have a conflict of interest with things it reports on, and we would not know".

-- "We have an extremist founder who created PanAm Post as a "vocation" that attacks what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources, with PanAm Post being used as a platform for climate change denial and anti-China rhetoric resued from The Epoch Times (among other fringe topics), while their staff uses possibly cooked-up credentials".

The points raised by Devonian Wombat about the publishing of "unsubstantiated conspiracy theories" and "virulent opinion pieces under their "news" segment" indicate the source is not reliable.

It appears that the English version of the site stopped posting articles in 2021, apart from one article from March 2023.

A recent article about marches in Colombia titled "Petro marches: campaign, waste and disconnection from reality" stated "Imitating his mentor, the late Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez, the Colombian president, Gustavo Petro ... As is the end of every megalomaniac, Gustavo Petro took a mass bath amid applause and ovations from his followers ... During his speech in Bolívar Square, the arrival point of the mobilization, the Colombian president invoked “social justice” and “equality”, the main utopian promises of every socialist ".

It has a Policy section which includes sub-categories Cronyism, Authoritarianism, Corruption and Protests. I had a quick look at its Ideology section. There were articles titled "New Zealand's prosperity began with its rejection of socialism", "California governor puts the brakes on his woke agenda and shelves transgender law” and "Soros funds TikTokers who defend Biden and the progressive agenda". Afaict, the articles are not labelled opinion. Burrobert (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Most of the issues that you're bringing on your own are not about reliability, but rather partiality, which is not disputed here but is unrelated to reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

You don’t need to read much of the site to see the problems.

- We don’t know anything about who is behind the site. There is no About page. Who, if anyone, are its editors? How many writers does it have?

- There is no clear division between news and opinion

- Its articles contain few links to support their arguments.

Here are some examples from its articles showing why we should not regard it as reliable:

- It thinks The Communist Party of China (CCP) not only created the coronavirus in a laboratory but also released it intentionally and that, consequently, “the US was precisely the country with the most infections and deaths from COVID-19 in the world”.

- It thinks Gustavo Petro is a megalomaniac

- It thinks New Zealand was saved from being socialist in the 1980’s and that “the socialists imposed [a regulation that] you needed a prescription from your doctor if you wanted margarine”. In fact, there was a time in NZ when you needed a prescription for margarine. The requirement was in the Margarine Act 1908 and was removed in 1972.

- It thinks protecting transgender people is a woke agenda

- It thinks Greta Thunberg’s agenda, “according to experts, is more motivated by political and economic interests than by true initiatives in favor of nature”.

- It describes abortion as “the so-called voluntary interruption of pregnancy”.

Burrobert (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the comprehensive analysis. I'd like to address some of the points you raised:

Ownership and Transparency: While the lack of an 'About' page and undisclosed ownership is indeed a concern, Wikipedia uses numerous sources that may not have transparent ownership but have proven reliability. Transparency is desirable, but the actual content and its alignment with verifiable facts take precedence.

Division Between News and Opinion: Many reputable outlets have a blended style, wherein the same platform provides both factual news and editorial opinions. What's vital is to judge the content based on its merits. The onus is on the editors to carefully consider the nature of the content before using it as a reference.

Links and References in Articles: The absence of numerous links in articles doesn't automatically discredit a source. Traditional newspapers, for instance, don't embed references. It's the factual accuracy and consistency with other known reliable sources that matter.

Also:

Claims about CCP and COVID-19: Highly speculative and conspiracy-oriented claims should always be approached with caution. It's imperative to cross-check with more widely accepted sources.

Gustavo Petro: Labeling political figures often involves a subjective tone. While "megalomaniac" is a strong word, it might fall within the realm of opinion. It's essential to differentiate between the editorial perspective and factual reports.

New Zealand's Margarine Regulation: As you correctly pointed out, there was indeed such a regulation, but the timing in the PanAm Post's assertion was off. It's crucial to fact-check, but this instance seems more of an error than a systematic issue

Greta Thunberg and Transgender Protection: These are opinion pieces and represent the perspective of the writer, not necessarily factual information. Using opinion pieces as factual references is not advisable from any source.

Recent Changes in PanAm Post: One critical thing to remember is the noticeable editorial shift in PanAm Post post-2020. The departure of certain figures and the subsequent changes can't be overlooked. As with any source, the current state should be the primary consideration. Wilfredor (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Ownership and Transparency: Wikipedia:Reliable sources says “When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering ... Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. ... The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited ”.

Recent Changes in PanAm Post: All of the examples I gave were from this year, most were from the last month.

Here is a template for what we should do with PanAm Post from the entry for California Globe in the Perennial list. “There is consensus that The California Globe is generally unreliable. Editors note the lack of substantial editorial process, the lack of evidence for fact-checking, and the bias present in the site's material. Editors also note the highly opinionated nature of the site as evidence against its reliability ". Burrobert (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the detailed analysis you've provided, and the points raised by the other contributors on this matter. I agree that the determination of a source's reliability should be made with care, and with the utmost consideration for the accuracy and consistency of the information provided.. but I've carefully perused the deliberations we've been having on the PanAm Post, and I must say I've reached a markedly different conclusion than Burrobert. It's easy to cast aspersions based on a handful of articles or even opinions, but let's take a broader view, shall we? Firstly, the absence of an 'About' page, while perhaps unconventional, doesn't necessarily equate to a lack of credibility. The Guardian, The Times, and The BBC, all venerable institutions, have had their share of criticisms, and yet, we don't question their credibility at the drop of a hat. The measure of a news outlet's reliability is in the accuracy and integrity of its reporting, not solely in its transparency about ownership. The blending of opinion and news is hardly unique to the PanAm Post. Many esteemed global publications walk a fine line between editorialising and reporting. Should we discard The Telegraph or The Independent because some of their articles have a clear editorial stance? No. It's up to us, the discerning readers, to parse fact from opinion. And looking the specific examples given: Every publication is prone to occasional bias or errors, whether it be the BBC, The New York Times, or any other. I've found several instances where PanAm Post's reportage was not only accurate but also provided a perspective largely ignored by mainstream media.

IMHO, rather than casting aside PanAm Post based on a few contentious articles, I suggest we adopt a more nuanced approach. Let's evaluate each article on its merits, using PanAm Post as a supplementary source, one that offers a different lens through which we can view events. After all, isn't diversity of thought what true journalism is all about? Wilfredor (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2-3 but leaning to 3: Some of the option 3/4 arguments are misplaced in that they point to opinion pieces or pieces by discredited former employees that there seems to be universal consensus not to use. I don't think anyone is arguing for the use of its opinion pieces as sources for facts. But I would say that if there is a consensus for option 2 the additional considerations would need to be extremely stringent (at least along the lines of the extensive additional considerations listed for La Patilla at the RSP): there are articles badged as news that are really opinion pieces and these are poor (some of these cite bad sources such as Breitbart); it should not be used for anything relating to US politics, where these problems seem to be concentrated; it shouldn't be used for anything relating to COVID (I can't imagine why it would be anyway); etc. If it is used, I can only see it being used for a quite narrow range of contexts: perhaps with attribution to triangulate with Venezuelan government sources or for the opinions of notable opposition figures. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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