Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 429

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 425 ← Archive 427 Archive 428 Archive 429 Archive 430 Archive 431 → Archive 435

Op-ed to substantiate rigging allegations during 2024 Pakistani general election

Would this opinion piece from The Washington Post be considered a reliable source for supporting allegations of rigging, given its usage three times in the following manner?

  1. Polls were held amidst allegations of pre-poll rigging.[1]
  2. A strict order was given to stop mentioning Khan's name on television and PTI protests were suppressed, while PTI supporters were arrested and harassed by the military, judiciary as well other political parties.[1]
  3. The Washington Post in its editorial board wrote following the election outcome, the military's control is being questioned more than ever before, possibly in decades as for the first time, the military-prefered candidate, Nawaz Sharif, was unable to win the most seats.[1]

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Anything from an op-ed would need to be attributed. You don't need to use an op-ed for these points as they are also discussed by plenty of reliable sources.[1][2][3][4] Burrobert (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @Saqib To prevent a future contention and confusion, it would be prudent to remove the op-ed as a source and support the content with sources pointed out by Burrobert above. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
It seems from WP:RSOPINION and WP:USERGENERATED that newspaper-associated opinion pieces like this one could be considered reliable. Personally, I'd avoid unless there is attribution to a 'notable person', but the letter of the wiki-law might support the notion that the opinion piece linked above could be a reliable source ... but in the interest of avoiding contention might be good to either omit or, if you are so inclined, include in the "further reading" section. -- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

When WP:RSEDITORIAL clearly says Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author,... then I don't understand what the fuss is about. --Saqib (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib Source is used at three locations, only attributed at one location. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Board, Editorial (12 February 2024). "Opinion: Pakistan's shocking election result shows authoritarians don't always win". Washington Post. Retrieved 15 February 2024.

Are any of these sources reliable for covering LGBT representation on Nickelodeon?

Yesterday, I copied the contents of a former section in LGBT representation in children's television to produce a draft and hastily submitted it to AfC. After being declined on account of having inadequate sources, I decided to make and fill out a source assessment table. Here are some sources that have yet to be ruled out as unreliable as far as I know:

GLAAD is cited multiple times:

  • "GLAAD 2002". (permanent dead link)
    On June 18, 2002, Nickelodeon ran a program titled Nick News Special Edition: My Family Is Different. Produced by Linda Ellerbee's Lucky Duck Productions and hosted by Ellerbee, My Family Is Different featured children of gay and lesbian parents talking with children from households that oppose equal rights for gay and lesbian families.
  • GLAAD 2018, p. 31.
    They would be the first pair of married male characters to be depicted on a Nickelodeon series. In later years, Luna Loud would be revealed as a bisexual girl who sent a love letter to a girl named Sam Sharp in the June 2017 episode "L is for Love". She is also revealed to have a crush on a boy named Hugh.
  • GLAAD 2019, p. 33.
    Later on, Sam seems to feel similarly about Luna and appears to reciprocate Luna's feelings in that episode and others, with Lori describing them as beginning to date in the episode "Racing Hearts," though neither character calls their excursion a date throughout the episode.
  • Where We Are on TV: 2020–2021 (PDF) (Report). p. 40.
    and Sam, her girlfriend, along with Howard and Harold McBride, "the two Dads of the protagonist’s best friend Clyde."
    In 2020, Nickelodeon debuted a new television show, Danger Force. The episode Say My Name portrayed two dads of a lost child in which Danger Force was trying to find his parents.

Autostraddle is cited twice:

Each of the following sources has only been cited once:

If you think that's a big handful, this is less than a third of that draft's citations. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Wow, that's a lot of sources – I don't know how much useful engagement a question about all of these sources together is going to get. As an initial observation from a "should we have an article on this topic" point of view rather than a strict "are these sources reliable" point of view, I am struggling to see any source out of the 71 in the current draft which discusses LGBT representation on Nickelodeon. There are sources which discuss specific instances of LGBT representation on Nickelodeon, and at least one source about LGBT representation on television generally, but nothing about LGBT representation on Nickelodeon. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
  • That's a lot of sources. Some of them would probably require attribution (either for WP:BIASED reasons or WP:RSOPINION reasons) and others wouldn't, but glancing over them there's probably enough there to write an article, and certainly enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. While this is probably enough, I would suggest searching for some academic sources as well; a quick glance on Google Scholar suggests that there's some papers that at least discuss this topic (not surprising given that Nickelodeon is very prominent and shifts in LGBT representation have a lot of academic discussion.) While, again, they're not strictly necessary, having them there from the start could help inform the article's structure in a useful way, and I suspect they'd be useful in terms of forming a complete timeline. --Aquillion (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Seems to be more of an undue question than an RS one. Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

While none of your responses have helped me determine how any particular tile in the source assessment table ought to be colored, they do bring up important caveats to take into consideration. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, GLAAD is an advocacy organization, so they are not WP:INDY. That doesn't mean they can't be cited for anything, but as a partisan organization, their views need to be attributed, not claimed as fact in Wikipedia's own voice. Same will apply to various other of these sources including Autostraddle, Gayming, Them, and Out. You may be able to find various journal sources here: [5][6].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Along with some of the work I've done on the source assessment table since I started this thread, this narrows it down to just three sources for me to ask about the reliability of:
– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

FanGraphs as a source, not just an external link

There appears to be consensus at WP:BASEBALL for inclusion of FanGraphs statistical information in articles about baseball players, as the site has a comprehensive collection of baseball statistics that exceeds in scope other sites. Were the site used as a reference for hard statistics, I wouldn't object.

However, an IP editor used a column at the site for a source in the Rowdy Tellez article (diff cited source). The immediate red flag to me was "blogs" in the path to the article, as it's an indicator of an author's opinion and not content that has been through a publication's full editorial review cycle. The IP did not provide a link to a masthead or about us page that discussed their editorial policy for blog pages when asked, nor could I find one in my own search. Can a blog/column/article at FanGraphs be relied upon as a reliable source? Or is this an IMDB-type situation where the site provides a valuable resource and should be included in external links for articles but is not a reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The term "blog" used in the FanGraphs url does not fall under user generated content. These are articles from columnists that are highly regarded baseball analysts with a full editorial process to back them. Articles from blogs.fangraphs.com are about as reliable as you can get for factual information and statistical analysis. More generic community generated content would fall under community.fangraphs.com. While these articles still have editorial backing and discretion, they can be created by anyone in the fangraphs community and I would argue shouldn't be considered reliable. - Skipple ☎ 14:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
FanGraphs is reliable. Its journalists are members of the BBWAA, and many have decades of previous experience in print journalism. Mach61 (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
@Mach61 @Skipple Thank you both for the replies. The issue of "blog" in the URL had come up a while back with another site, and I wanted to see what the take was on this site. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I can understand the concern if one is unfamiliar with Fangraphs. The term "blog" typically invokes ideas of self-published non-authoritative sources. Thankfully, Fangraphs is neither of those things. - Skipple ☎ 20:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

medriva.com

Following the discussion on bnnbreaking.com, I thought I would check out its associate medriva.com - another product of the same owner. It purports to be a library of medical articles and medical news, all enhanced by AI somehow. It’s been used as a source on two Wikipedia articles:

1. 2022–2023 mpox outbreak, which cites [7], which appears to be a near-literal translation of the Somali-language source here: [8]. That source is at least somewhat credited, as “Capital Online”, which seems like a literal translation of the name of the source. I’m unsure of the copyright implications of publishing “near-verbatim translations”, but it doesn’t feel wholly above board.

2. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, which cites [9], another “Medriva newsroom” article, which this time is a very light paraphrase of [10]. The source has a permissive license: [11]. However, although Medriva mentions ECDC, it does not at any point attribute the text of the article to ECDC. This is therefore a COPYVIO.

In terms of the medical articles, meet the “renowned” Dr Jessica Nelson: [12], who has found the time to write no less than 12 articles today. She must have been busy seeing patients because she managed to write 22 articles yesterday. The articles do at least link to sources occasionally, but usually to explain terms rather than to provide credit. This one: [13] appears to be based on this source: [14] but doesn’t say so. Observe the “ray of hope” wording, which echoes the “beacon of hope” phrase beloved of BNN (Twitter link, sorry, but illustrative: [15]).

In short, this thing appears to be very much cut from the same cloth as BNN Breaking. Stylometrically, it’s almost certainly using the same LLM-based filter/generator behind the scenes. I can’t find any reliable sources discussing it, but I feel confident in stating it provides no value as a source for Wikipedia. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

From their "about" page: "Spearheaded by visionary entrepreneur Gurbaksh Chahal and part of the esteemed Procurenet Group, Medriva champions the union of avant-garde AI technology with age-old medical wisdom. Our genesis lies in a clear vision: harmonizing the tech revolution with reliable medical insights." Oily, buzzwordy BS, and that's completely ignoring Chahal, who has been discussed in these pages above and previously. This is toxic-waste level AI garbage, made all the more horrible by being in a topic area where MEDRS should apply. Absolutely not reliable for anything. I would not oppose a blacklist. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, looks like weaponized link farming to me in a new era. What's the proper way forward towards blacklisting? I'm still trying to recall my own memories regarding the proper place in WP to address such matters? Cononsense (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Is e-Perimetron a reliable source?

I can't tell, but we use it[16] in over 20 articles.[17] Doug Weller talk 11:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

They appear to be saying the right things[18], and their editorial board[19] is made up of people from the right fields, and I can't find anything negative about them online.
I'm not sure RSN is always up to the task of judging journals, as they can be from such niche subjects that those outside the area may not be able to give any helpful insight. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Worldcrunch

our article is rather positive but the website wants me to sign in, which makes me think there is some level of user-generated content. It doesn't seem to have come up here before. The article is 110th Mechanized Brigade (Ukraine) and the text is: it has gained notoriety for its part in the Battle of Avdiivka, and it is said to have performed well in spite of the amount of new Russian resources sent to this front

Thanks for any thoughts Elinruby (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

They appear to just translate articles from other sources (which they have licensed), the url from the 110th Mechanized Brigade (Ukraine)[20] is just a translation of a Pravda article.[21] They provide a link at the bottom of their translation.
As with aggregators such as MSN or Yahoo reliability doesn't apply to the repost/translation but to the original source. As with MSN/Yahoo I suggest replacing the Worldcrunch reference with one for the original source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thank you running that down. Was that Russian or Ukrainian Pravda, do you remember? I'll go take care of that, or makes make sure you did already. It's still in the cue though Elinruby (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok, Ukrainian Pravda, ok. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Chronicle

I have crossed paths with a reasonably new editor @SebbeKg: that has been creating a number of new articles which are heavily but not exclusively based on content from a medieval chronicler named Jan Długosz [22]

Examples:

Others articles in the same area: [23]

Is there a consensus on what extent should the above primary chronicle should be considered a reliable source for historical narratives (for context see the above)? I'm pretty sure this new editor will want more than my opinion. // Timothy :: talk  09:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I recommend to use history books (there are plenty of them about these topics) instead of such primary source (especially editions of dubious provenience). This source is so old it is unusable without context provided by recent historiography. Note these topics concern history of eastern Europe, so we should be really cautious about sourcing. Pavlor (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi @TimothyBlue,
I tried to look at the source but unfortunately I don't read Polish, however:
  1. Secondary sources are preferred as it helps corroborates the content. As this is a primary source, I wouldn't say it's unreliable straight away, but without any other verification, I'm not sure it's suitable.
  2. As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources - age matters, as older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed etc..
I'd try to find some secondary sources that have been published more recently.
Starlights99 (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The Pak Military Monitor

I've come across this new website thepakmilitarymonitor.com billing itself as a "ONE STOP CENTRE FOR MILITARY NEWS ON PAKISTAN" and it appears to provide coverage on topics that may not always be covered by conventional news outlets. The content appears to focus on Pakistan's military activities, providing analysis and insights. Considering its potential relevance to WP articles on Pakistan's military personnel, I'm contemplating using this source. However, I'd like community input on its reliability and suitability for WP. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated in helping me decide whether to include this source in WP articles. Saqib (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's probably relic, but I would use some caution. The editor[24] is a seasoned journalist having previously worked for the Hindustan Times, but he's also the author of "Coming Blowback: How Pakistan is Endangering the World". In general I would always be careful using Indian sources for Pakistan, and vice versa. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested: Could you please clarify why you referenced this book? would appreciate any context you can provide. As for using Indian sources for Pakistan, I agree it requires caution. However, in cases where Pakistani news sites lack coverage, we may have to rely on alternative sources like this one. --Saqib (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Because it's was written by the editor, and doesn't appear to be the most neutral of works. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The source is probably reliable, as I said I would just use some caution when using it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

ComicsVerse, Press-Telegram

Which of these two sources could be considered generally reliable, generally unreliable, or somewhere in between depending on context? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you provide the context? A comicbook website and a local paper from Longbeach is an odd couple. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
ComicsVerse is used to support this statement about characters in The Loud House:

Later on, Sam seems to feel similarly about Luna and appears to reciprocate Luna's feelings in that episode and others, with Lori describing them as beginning to date in the episode "Racing Hearts," though neither character calls their excursion a date throughout the episode.

Meanwhile, Press-Telegram is used to support this statement about characters in another Nicktoon called Middle School Moguls:

Also, one character, Yuna, in the main cast, had two moms, who appeared in two episodes as secondary characters who give Yuna moral support, giving her the inspiration to finish her fashion designs.

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The site are probably reliable, but there's a problem with how they are being used. The Comicverse link supplied doesn't verify any of the details in the content. No mention of Sam appearing to reciprocate Luna's feeling, no mention of date not being called a date. The same problem is apparent in the Press-Telegram source. It only verifies that Yuna has two moms, everything else is not in the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Revaluating Engadget after 2024 layoffs

Since 2012, there has been a consensus that Engadget is "generally reliable for technology-related articles".

Unfortunately, earlier today The Verge reported that Yahoo is laying off part of Engadget's staff. According to the article:

The changes are designed to give the outlet a stronger emphasis on commerce revenue, while removing key editorial leaders from its newsroom, including its editor-in-chief. [...] Taken together, the changes paint a picture of an outlet cutting staff to focus on things like Google traffic, SEO, commerce, and affiliate revenue — areas that could be potentially more lucrative for Yahoo, but also have a tendency of being fickle and subject to advertisers’ and Google’s business decisions.

The article goes on to note that these changes are similar to those made at CNET after their 2020 acquisition by Red Ventures, which caused us to downgrade CNET's reliability.

Should we consider downgrading post-February 2024 Engadget to "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" status at WP:RSP, similar to CNET? Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No need to rush re-evaluating the source IMO Mach61 (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Too early. Cononsense (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
If something happens that actually affects their article quality, it would be worth considering. Right now all we have are layoffs and guesswork about what they might mean. I do suspect they're entering Stage III in the ongoing enshittification of the Internet, but let's wait to see what happens. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Definitely a reason to keep an eye on it, but it's to early to change the rating. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of preliminary autopsies

Can preliminary autopsies be reported on Wikipedia articles in general? A discussion about this topic is happening at this page Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#Preliminary_autopsy_results. The sources citing the autopsy and/or its results include the NYT, USA Today and the Associated Press. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Citing the autopsy directly? No WP:BLPPRIMARY still applies to the recently deceased. You could use other sources to say "such and such reported the details of the preliminary autopsy as" etc. However whether that detail should be included is a matter for discussion on the articles talk page. Just because something can be reliable referenced doesn't mean it should be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Vice

Not sure if this is the best place for this, but Vice is apparently no longer going to publish material. I wouldn't be shocked if the whole site gets taken down at some point, so any citations to that site may need adjusted. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests. Even in the doomsday scenario that the entire website gets taken offline, most of the citations should be backed up by the internet archive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Given the successful lawsuit against Internet Archive, I'm more wary. But thanks for the link to the discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
If there is anyway to still access the source then this isn't a reliability issue (WP:Sourceaccess). Even if an issue comes up with internet archive another third party could buy up the content and put it somewhere else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Essentially Sports

I have been working a bit on the article for Tristan Tate, with the goal of establishing a personal life section talking about his children, partners/ex-partners.

For context, Tristan Tate was an European Kickboxing champion who was involved in a very high profile criminal case with his brother, Andrew Tate

The website seems to cover various sports and athletes and I am curious whether this article/source could be considered reliable

Here is the article in question:

https://www.essentiallysports.com/boxing-news-who-is-tristan-tate-s-wife-everything-you-need-to-know-about-andrew-tate-s-brother-s-married-life-and-kids/ Mr Vili talk 02:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The have an editorial guidelines and a advisory board, but they also offer "seamless integration" of advertising (read advertorials). I would also be careful with exactly what you use, note the use of "rumoured" or "Reportedly" they are deliberately not saying these things are true, just that others may have zaid these things. But for things like he has two daughters, and two dogs it should be usable. For BLP details about third parties (rumours of who he had relationships with and such) I would suggest finding a better quality source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Great points. @ActivelyDisinterested if the subject (Tristan) has also stated and claimed these things on podcasts, would it make it safer to assume they are valid (Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF)? Mr Vili talk 01:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
As long as the statements are about him, and not third parties it should be fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Vulcan Post

Is Vulcan Post an RS? For Mang Inasal. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 10:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The language seems quite promotional, and their about us says their goal is to inspire entrepreneurs. It's likely reliable for basic details and dates. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
It's apparently a digital lifestyle publication. The about page includes a list of staff and writers, and authors are identified in bylines. From skimming a couple articles, it seem like they write profiles of entrepreneurs and entities, especially ones that seem emerging. I agree they're most likely reliable for basic details, dates, information, etc. I don't know enough about their history as a periodical to assess more interpretative claims, e.&ngsp;g. if they make a projection about what might happen in the future (though from what I've skimmed, they seem to avoid trying to do that in their articles? I've seen endings hat are along the lines of 'the company leader says this is what they'll do; time will tell how things pan out'). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Outlets like this are fundamentally promotional. There's a ton of them and the main thing I see them used for on Wikipedia is to pump up corporate promotional articles that can't find real sources. They are not NEWSORGs of any stripe. At best they have the status of a press release. Not usable for notability, I wouldn't use them for content, or at all really - David Gerard (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Fox Business as distinct from Fox News

During a recent conversation with David Gerard, I raised the question of whether our general deprecation of Fox News carries over to Fox Business. As I said there, I had not found any discussions in the archives here that specifically address FBN, and the deprecation specifically states that it does not extend to material reported by Fox affiliates. So I think it is reasonable to conclude that we do not consider Fox Business to be deprecated by mere unstated association with Fox News. But conversely this does not mean that we give FBN a presumption of reliability, either (and for good reasons, as I'll go into below).

When I mentioned to Gerard that I felt it was a good time to open this discussion (in fact it's well beyond time, IMO), he counseled me that the history of discussions of Fox here is fraught enough that if I chose to do this, I should make sure to research past discussions and uses of FBN as a source in existing articles. Forthwith:

  • Previous discussions: The only discussion in the archives to directly address Fox Business was quickly closed because it was initiated by an IP who felt that right-wing media in general should be deprecated because of its political orientation ... obviously, we wouldn't do that. A year earlier, one participant in a discussion five years ago says she finds Fox Business reliable

    Other than that, I find only passing mentions that I will not link here as they don't really have anything to offer one way or the other.

  • Existing use as a source: Outside of articles related to conservative media, politics and personalities, and notable people's statements about themselves made in Fox Business reporting, it seems that FBN is used as a source for the net worth or investments of individuals:[25], [26], [27] and [28] (of note is that this last one is used in a featured article about a living person that ran on the Main Page last year; the FAC does not mention it despite questions about the reliability of other sources during the discussion). But there are other uses, mostly the sort of facts that are part of standard business coverage: [29], [30], [31] (part of a bundle) and [32]. I'm sure more could be found—this is just a sample.

I would agree that any determination that Fox Business is a reliable source come with the following carveouts:

  • Any content originating with Fox News,
  • Any scientific or political content (likely a huge overlap with the first),
  • Any content originating with Maria Bartiromo, or a guest on her show, post-2016 (Her article even says that she's become fanatically pro-Trump since he was elected. I've also been reading Network of Lies lately, and Brian Stelter reports that by 2020 many of her own friends and former coworkers didn't recognize her (save physically) as the onetime pioneering and respected financial journalist, the first to report directly from the NYSE floor, she had been 10-15 years earlier) and
  • Any content from Lou Dobbs's show (cancelled in 2021).

Anybody else want to help resolve this? Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that reporting by Fox Business that is solely about financial conditions of companies, financial markets, economic data, and so forth would be considered reliable, but if there's even a hint of science or politics, then it's best to look elsewhere. The thing about business news that much of it is routine, any reporting worth citing isn't going to be unique to Fox, it would get picked up by other news organizations. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I've been hoping to use Eleanor Terrett's stuff but had qualms about Fox News because I have qualms about Fox. I suspect it's a happy accident when Fox doesn't suck. OTOH, Fox Business may be a suitable area to carve out - David Gerard (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, older versions of that sort of reporting is also sometimes more likely to be found on FBN, though, due to archiving and paywall policies on other business-news websites. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

oldtimemusic.com is AI generated spam

It's currently used in over 100 articles, probably because it comes up in every "Song explained" search, but is 100% unreliable. Until 2018, the website was a fansite for actual old-time music, but in 2018 pivoted to spammy gear "reviews", and in the past year or two has added AI generated pages about songs (as demonstrated here which frequently reuse sentence fragments. Also, the site contains a blatant lie on its home page, claiming to have been featured on Billboard and Pitchfork. I think it should be added to the spam blacklist, as I keep seeing it when doing AfC reviews. Mach61 (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like spamy bullshit Mr Vili talk 07:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I support blacklisting the source, it seems devoid of actual meaningful content. Even the names of its contributors are repetitive (Kellie Potts [33], Kellie Melton [34], Kellie McCarty [35], Kellie Hill [36], Kellie Gray [37], Kelli Stein [38], Kelli Robertson [39]) and thus most likely fake. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely not a reliable source. It’s noise pollution. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Two sources on Mongol Flags that I need confirmation for

I'm looking for sources on Mongol Banners & Suldes, and I have come across two that I'm not able to verify. Here they are:

https://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ICV27-E7-Zhao.pdf

https://mongoltoli.mn/history/ (Has a lot of info on mongol banners and images)

Sci Show With Moh (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Mongoltoli.mn should be reliable, as it's backed by the Mongolian government. [40] I'm less certain of Flaginstitute.org, as it describes it's members as novices and experts, vexillologists and vexillographers, flag geeks and flag nerds.[41] Also although there's some details of the author at the bottom of the PDF it's unclear what those details amount to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing cousinship of Joanne McCarthy (basketball) and Melissa McCarthy plus

  1. Is it enough to source that Joanne McCarthy (basketball)'s sister Jenny McCarthy is cousins with Melissa McCarthy and separately source that Jenny and Joanne are sisters. Alternatively, are any of the following RS for the cousinship of Joanne and Melissa [42], [43], or [44].
  2. Although generally not reliable, does the photo of a social security card make this a reliable source that their grandfather was born Michael Carty.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
    1a. Yes it should be, if they are sisters they share cousins. Be careful as in some situations it wouldn't be true, step-siblings could have different sets of cousins and other such fringe cases. But in general 'the cousin of my sibling is my cousin' is an uncontroversial statement.
    1b. In regard to the sources, I'm not sure about the first, the dailymail is a deprecated source, and the last link just keep redirecting me to scam adverts (you have won a MacBook pro and such).
    2. The problem with images is provenance, how do we tell that the image is what it claims to be. As it's in a self-published post on Medium by a Genealogical adventurer & storyteller I would probably avoid it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Economic estimates of health benefit

At Talk:Low Traffic Neighbourhood we are discussing the reference Rachel Aldred, Anna Goodman, James Woodcock. Impacts of active travel interventions on travel behaviour and health: Results from a five-year longitudinal travel survey in Outer London, Journal of Transport & Health, Volume 35, 2024, 101771, ISSN 2214-1405, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2024.101771. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140524000173), used to justify the text:

Increased physical activity followed the introduction of LTNs and other lesser measures in areas within greater London.[1] The resulting benefits to employers from reduced sickness absence of employees, and the financial benefits from reduced premature mortality, were estimated by the methodology of the Department for Transport.[1] These benefits were equivalent to some £4800 per person over twenty years, compared to a per-person cost of £28–35 (for LTNs implemented during 2020 as Covid-19 emergency interventions) or £112 per person (for higher-cost LTNs with, for example, crossing improvements and greening measures).
Areas that were not given the full LTN treatment showed much lesser benefits; nevertheless, the health economic benefits of the overall programme were some £1,056m, more than ten times greater than the cost which totaled c. £100m.[1]

This has been removed with the comments "we really need WP:MEDRS for health impacts of LTNS." and "Would need WP:MEDRS; these are simply not reliable sources".

I note that the Journal of Transport & Health is a well-established academic journal and describes its own rigorous peer-review process; the paper describes its process of extensive fact-gathering and its use of recommended estimation methods from the Department for Transport. I also notice that the essay WP:NOTBMI describes this sort of economic estimate as not biomedical and not subject to the special requirements of WP:MEDRS. I feel that this paper is uncontroversially a reliable source for the comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Rachel Aldred, Anna Goodman, James Woodcock. Impacts of active travel interventions on travel behaviour and health: Results from a five-year longitudinal travel survey in Outer London, Journal of Transport & Health, Volume 35, 2024, 101771, ISSN 2214-1405, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2024.101771. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140524000173)
Let's go through the claims in the source:
1. LTNs increase active travel.
2. Active travel is as good as any physical activity.
3. Physical activity prevents health problems.
4. The health problems prevented cost some amount of money to treat.
1+2+3. LTNs prevent health problems.
Claims 1 and 4 are not biomedical information, claims 2, 3 and 1+2+3 are. WP:SYNTH says it's not okay to use multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in any single source, and I would say it's also improper to synthesize MEDRS and non-MEDRS to reach a conclusion only stated in the non-MEDRS. There then needs to be a MEDRS that explicitly states 1+2+3, even though claim 3 is obvious enough to not need MEDRS. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
For a statement about the health effects of LTNs we would need a WP:MEDRS about the health effects of LTNs (i.e. not a primary source as linked). See WP:MEDFAQ if WP:MEDRS is too heavy going. Also, we can't smudge research into active travel (not LTNs) as a proxy. Bon courage (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
  • While economic statements are not biomedical, as you correctly point out, saying that a study found economic benefits from reduced sickness absence of employees and reduced premature mortality is inherently making claims about sickness and mortality. Those claims require support from MEDRS. The same applies to the finding of increased physical activity, as it is widely understood that physical activity is related to health. As described in BMI, Information that is not typically biomedical may still require high-quality sourcing if the context may lead the reader to draw a conclusion about biomedical information. However, this source could be used if the health-related components could be sourced from elsewhere, or to support discussion about any benefits that are unrelated to health. Sunrise (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the wording of that text overstates the study's assumptions as facts in wikivoice. They observed changes in travel behavior via the surveys. But they didn't measure or observe health/absenteeism changes; they merely assumed them as givens and assigned monetary values to them. Perhaps rewording the text would also allay any MEDRS issues by making it clear that the study didn't make a biomedical claim but rather it just assumed a health benefit for the purpose of computing an estimated economical impact. Schazjmd (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
OK, thanks to all who have commented here. This paper is a reputable primary source for the finding of increased active travel in LTNs. From there, it uses an established method published by the UK's Department for Transport, an appropriate MEDRS-compliant source with a well-documented empirical base, to estimate (very approximately) the economic benefits derived from better health, in turn derived from greater physical activity. This form of synthesis is entirely appropriate for a reliable source, per WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTSYNTH. I propose to rewrite the comment, approximately per Schazjmd, perhaps as follows:
Increased active travel followed the introduction of LTNs in areas within greater London; the method of the UK Department for Transport was used to estimate and value some predicted health benefits, at some £4800 per person over twenty years. This compared to a per-person initial cost of £28–35 (for LTNs implemented during 2020 as Covid-19 emergency interventions) or £112 per person (for higher-cost LTNs with, for example, crossing improvements and greening measures).[1]
Any comments on reliability of sources for the above purpose, before I proceed (and take any RSN-inappropriate discussion to the article's talk page)? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
You'd need a secondary source for this. The primary is not usable in the way you want. Bon courage (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I am not clear on what policies and guidelines form the basis for your comments. Would you be kind enough to point us to them, and explain briefly how they apply? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
In the new quote, the scale of the problems is definitely reduced, but it still contains the central implication that LTNs are associated with health improvements. In addition, a Department of Transport is not MEDRS-compliant as their subject of competency is transport, not health (even a Department of Health may not qualify as MEDRS, depending on context), but their MEDRS status doesn't apply here since they are not the source under discussion. The statement that Increased active travel followed the introduction of LTNs requires MEDRS if active travel is presented as having health benefits.

....OK, personally I'd probably accept a review by the Department for Transport, on the intersection between travel and health, as being MEDRS, but I'll drop this argument here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I would normally recommend looking at the main article on this topic, in this case active travel, to see how the topic of health is discussed. However, that article itself requires a substantial cleanup with a focus on MEDRS. Sunrise (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I think even if there were not WP:MEDRS considerations there would be a WP:WEIGHT issue. This is recent primary research, so why should Wikipedia (which is meant to reflect 'accepted knowledge') be interested? Asserting the novel finding as fact in Wikivoice is especially problematic. Bon courage (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
A valid point, that we may discuss on the more appropriate talk page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rachel Aldred, Anna Goodman, James Woodcock. Impacts of active travel interventions on travel behaviour and health: Results from a five-year longitudinal travel survey in Outer London, Journal of Transport & Health, Volume 35, 2024, 101771, ISSN 2214-1405, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2024.101771. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140524000173)

Newsweek post-IBT and FAs

Newsweek's current status is to evaluate sources post-2018, after IBT ceased ownership, on a case-by-case basis. However, there hasn't been much consensus on whether genuinely good pieces from this outlet are high-quality enough for Featured Articles. Right now I'm working on bringing Etika up to FA, and I wanted to ask if this source is high quality and reliable enough to pass, or at least an exception? This covers parts of his life before his career, was written in 2020, and the author has written for other reliable sources like NME, PC Gamer and Insider (culture). PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I would avoid it. FAs require RSes and current Newsweek isn't one - David Gerard (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, it's probably best to omit it if I can't find a better source. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Dusted Magazine

https://dustedmagazine.tumblr.com/ and http://www.dustedmagazine.com/ before that. I've been working on Draft:New York City Jazz, and this is one of the sources to establish the notability of the album. But is it actually reliable? To the site's credit, it's been operational for over twenty years, and with one to two dozen writers contributing at some point. It has also been linked to over 800 times. On the other had, the site is staffed exclusively of volunteers, and most of them have never been published in "serious" magazines. Would you accept this as a notable source in an AfD? Mach61 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like a group blog, I've asked for some input from WikiProject Music. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
In my experience, it seems to function like any other digital publication, just with hosting on Tumblr rather than their own site (explained here). I wouldn't immediately discount it, though I'm not aware of any specific credentials any of its regular writers can claim. Being volunteers shouldn't disqualify anyone either, though. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Whatever this discussion concludes about the source (hopefully WikiProject Music is able to provide more guidance), I agree that neither volunteerism nor using Tumblr as their platform should necessarily disqualify Dusted as a periodical with a history and a team. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I can't speak to anything on Tumblr, but Dusted was an independent review site with editorial control when I consulted it semi-regularly in the late 2000s and early 2010s. I'm not sure if it had a paper outlet, but the website was one that contains valuable information and criticism of independent and experimental musicians up until it stopped publishing (I want to say mid-2010s?). I don't know anything about the new site and who's managing the name of the publication now, but for historical profiles/interviews/reviews, I have and certainly would cite them in an article and have many times accepted them as an RS at AfD. Chubbles (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Chubbles It's the same folks running it, the OG site was abandoned due to having outdated code Mach61 (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of following sources on net-worth & career

I am working on adding some information on the networth & career of Tristan Tate, I would like to know which of these sources could be considered reliable in the context of WP:BLP and in general.

1: https://coinwire.com/tristan-tate-net-worth/

2: https://moneymade.io/learn/article/tristan-tate-net-worth

3: https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/what-is-tristan-tates-net-worth

4: https://accumulate.com.au/tristan-tate-net-worth/ Mr Vili talk 02:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

5: https://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/celebrity/romanian-authorities-reveal-the-true-value-of-andrew-tates-empire-and-fortune-and-its-a-far-cry-from-300-400-million/

1: Coinwire to me seems somewhat reliable, they have editors, and principles regarding unbiased reporting, integrity and transparancy
2: Seems accurate to me, only a small disclosure about affiliate disclaimers https://moneymade.io/disclosure
3: Personally, I think the Sportskeeda source seems unreliable in this context, it states his networth is $10m but that is a fraction of the cost of his luxury cars, furthermore, it says his brother purchased a yacht in 2022 costing around $100m, yet it says their combined networth is $100m which seems highly unlikely considering they own private jets, luxury properties, luxury cars, and expensive jewelry & watches
4: Appears to be reliable, and niche-focused on networth of celebrities, but not much information I could find about their editorial policies/team Mr Vili talk 03:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@Mr vili I would be careful with gauging the networth of a subject like Andrew Tate. Unlike your typical businessperson who maybe has stock in companies or some kind of venture capital funding, it's probably impossible to do the same for Andrew Tate as his assets are unclear, as can be seen in his career section.
I'm pretty sure that for Wikipedia, net-worth should almost always be based on an estimate from Forbes (not contributor, that is). Or some other very reliable sources like the New York Times (which typically also relies on Forbes). You could probably say something like revenue from his businesses but networth is likely contentious. TLAtlak 03:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Also,
1. Coinwire, doubtful. It's like a crypto blog, it seems.
2. Same as Coinwire.
3. WP:SPORTSKEEDA, hell no.
4. Blog.
5. Hell no. WP:CELEBRITYNETWORTH
In addition, a lot of them have contrasting figures. So in my opinion we should not financial information unless we get something from Forbes staff. TLAtlak 03:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
You are correct that it would be very difficult to get an accurate representation of their networth, especially due to the subjective nature of their online brand identity which also carries some worth and not easily measurable.
However that being said, do you consider them at least somewhat reliable in regards to the career section? Mr Vili talk 03:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Celebrity Net Worth and Sportskeeda are generally unreliable (I would not use this for something like a career section, maybe it's fine for pop culture info), and the others read like a tabloid. I personally wouldn't use it, and there are sufficient WP:RELIABLE sources that write about Andrew Tate anyway.
Let's see what other editors say TLAtlak 03:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
No worries, thanks I had not checked whether some of those had already been discussed/included in the RS list so my bad Mr Vili talk 03:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Don't use any of these; they're garbage as this is a WP:BLP. As noted, blogs and previously identified unreliable sources. Mr. TLA is absolutely correct - any site that is attempting to quantify a net worth of a marginally notable minor public figure is simply lying. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@Kuru agreed. Follow-up, my BLP articles aren't really businesspeople just mostly human rights activists, but for something like net-worth, does Wikipedia only use Forbes staff articles, profiles, or their lists? That's at least what I've seen. TLAtlak 03:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I personally think even the Forbes and Bloomberg lists are fantasy, but at least they're limiting themselves to figures with significant public holdings of some generally agreed-upon value. I'm not kidding when I say there's thousands of goofy scraper sites and blogs that randomly apply a "net worth" to minor actors and sports figures in order to offer the pretense of biographical completeness. But yes, we frequently mention net worth for billionaires leveraging Forbes and Bloomberg; certainly not for pedestrian biographies. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Forbes and Bloomberg, noted. Andrew Tate's net worth is $900 million, wait no $370 million USD, oops, $12 million, TLAtlak 03:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Church Executive

User @Pbritti has been citing a website, Church Executive, as a reliable source, in the article for Ryan Binkley even though every article that is cited, is on the website's "Blog" section. This is a flagrant violation of WP:BLOG, however, Pbritti insists that Church Executive is a reliable source with an editorial staff, even though their website has no "about us" section to confirm this. Additionally, the source has never before been used on wikipedia prior to this so there is no precedent as to using it. Can someone help weigh in on this? Scu ba (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The specific article in question is RYAN BINKLEY & CREATE CHURCH: Welcoming by (divine) design Scu ba (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Every article posted to the website populates under the heading "blog"; this is probably just a filing quirk. You can see the cover story for the most recent issue is on Walter McCall. The accessible version of that story is visible here, filed under "blog". The magazine's editorial staff is listed here. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
this is probably just a filing quirk, regardless, if they call it a blog... it's a blog. 2 people, who are also the only reporters for the "magazine" isn't an editorial board. Best, Scu ba (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
What is your evidence that there are only two reporters? I see articles by Jeff Harvey, Sharon McDowell, RaeAnn Slaybaugh, and Eric Spacek. None of these people are the two editors, who appear to have a tight leash on what gets published, considering articles are only shared by the account labelled "admin". They appear to prefer people read their emagazine rather than use the website, which seems to just serve as a backup to the articles they've published. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay... then cite the physical magazine under {{cite book}}, don't cite their blog.
Regardless, that doesn't change the fact the magazine has never been cited before on wikipedia, and appears to just be self promotional material for church leaders. Scu ba (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
For the record, {{cite magazine}} is a template for citing magazines, whether physical or digital. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
@Scu ba, I'm guessing that you haven't seen WP:RSBLOG before. If a magazine calls something "a blog", it doesn't matter. It's still published by the magazine. (Also, technically, what makes something a blog is the content and publication schedule, not the software used to post it online. Blogging software often gets used for non-blog purposes, and vice versa.)
I really appreciate you being cautious about sources used to describe people, and I'm glad you asked about it. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I've seen print editions of Church Executive. It's a magazine about ecclesiastical leadership, like a trade periodical for church professions, that's been around for around two decades. Every physical edition of the magazine includes the URL of its website (churchexecutive.com) on page 2 and a list of its editorial staff and editorial board on page 3. I suspect Pbritti's right on the money that the URLs of the online versions of articles are genuinely a filing quirk. This source meets the basic expectations of reliability for Wikipedia, which considers periodicals with editorial review (newspapers, magazines, etc.) reliable sources. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Soap Hub and Ned Hardy

Are https://soaphub.com and https://nedhardy.com/ reliable sources when it comes to biographies? Like birth dates etc.

Regarding soap hub I got a thanks from one experienced editor when I added it to support the birth date of Heather Tom but now another editor continues to revert it. DrKilleMoff (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I would say they are just a bit below the WP:MREL category, for now. From my experience, typically a lot of sources might cite a subject's birthyear, so I would suggest just focusing on that and keep looking to see if any reliable sources note the birthdate. TLAtlak 04:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

OAS Panel of Independent International Experts

In 2018, the Organization of American States set up a Panel of Independent International Experts to analyse the commission of possible of crimes against humanity in Venezuela (press release, executive summary and final report).

Is the report a reliable source to use in the Guarimba article? NoonIcarus (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  • It's a primary source, so very likely to need attribution if we are talking about anything even vaguely controversial. If there is criticism of the source, it is likely to be WP:DUE as well. Of course, it is impossible for us to say whether it is reliable unless we know the specific claim. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
It is worth noting that the OAS is not a neutral body, so any claims attributed to it will often need to be presented with counter viewpoints. It made a lot of untrue claims with regards to the Bolivian election of 2020, for example, so care is needed with anything it publishes. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
CEPR (a pro-Maduro thinktank) in turn, despite its academic veneer, is not a reliable source for whether OAS is reliable. Many of the claims of inaccuracy in this text are simply false. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Several sources reached the same conclusions, including the European Union, and the OAS reaffirmed the report, so it isn't widely accepted that the claims are unture, let alone that this is a systematic issue for all the reports by the OAS.
Even if this was the case, this RfC is about a Panel of Independent Experts, not about the OAS Bolivian election report. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
The New York Times investigation also found clear errors in the OAS behaviour, as you must know. The OAS is a political organisation, and its committee is selected and paid for by them. We would also attribute statements by the EU on anything remotely controversial. Attribute it, or don't use it. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
The New York Times article also cites experts who believe that the conclusions were correct, so my point stand. In any case, I agree that attribution can be included. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I would say this could be used with clear attribution, but I would not use it to source statements in wikivoice. Ostalgia (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, has the Panel's findings been used by other sources? Is there journalistic or academic endorsement or criticism of it? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
@P-Makoto: Absolutely. Back in the day it was a big headline because it was seen as a precedent for the current investigation in the International Criminal Court (ICC): ([46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]), and it was the first time that the OAS did something similar. Former ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo was involved with the audiences, and after published the report has been cited by both the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela[57] and the ICC.[58] Just a few months ago, the ICC approved the Panel to submit an amicus curiae to the Court.[59][60][61]
The Venezuelan government expectedly condemned the report, calling it a "grotesque media farce",[62] and Max Blumenthal from The Grayzone questioned why situations like the one in Israel weren't investigated.[63] Incidentally, Blumenthal also questioned Cotler for being a lawyer for Leopoldo López. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
And they attribute the report too when they cite it. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

https://plaskett.family

While working on one article, I found contents sourced to https://plaskett.family/mansfields-were-pacific-valley-pioneers/. Upon looking for other articles using this source, I've found nearly all insertions of anything sourced to plaskett.family site was done by one user. I reached out to the user at User_talk:Btphelps their talk page. The user said The site contains excerpts from a historiography written by a person who lived during the era described. It's first person reporting of events and people the author knew.. An example of contents sourced to that site I've removed. What it looks like is a website maintained by some random person based on notes and unpublished materials from family. Simply having it uploaded on website doesn't make it reliably published and fleshing out contents based on a such a personal website is undue. With my interpretation of WP:RS, this should be treated as a blog. Since the other user is disputing this, I am seeking outside comments. Graywalls (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If the source was authored by a person firsthand experiencing the events that the source is being cited to describe, that would make it a primary source. Primary sources aren't necessarily automatically reliable or unreliable, but as a project we generally prioritize and prefer citations to independent secondary sources—something written by a historian would be a reliable, independent, secondary source. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
They're all written by some random people late Mabel Plaskett and Bill Alderson. Not only is it just a primary source, I would even argue that it is WP:OR and WP:SYN. Research based on someone's diary, family notes and other unpublished "internal documents" would be based on unpublished documents. If a person writes contents onto Wikipedia based on papers found in their family's attic, that would be fully unacceptable original research. Now, simply having that information ricocheted off a blog site by WP:OR process having done by some random internet dudes that put their research on their personal website doesn't turn it into reliably published sources. Graywalls (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
WP:OR and WP:SYN apply to Wikipedia content, not sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
That's a fine line. If you wrote up something that would be considered original research or synthesis, then hosted it on weebly, then cited that website, it might not technically be OR or SYN but it would be on par with citing Twitter and Instagram of random people. Graywalls (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Quoting random people from twitter or instgram would be an WP:RS issue. If I was an expert who had previously been published by other independent sources (WP:SPS), then my post on Weebly could be used with caution (WP:SELFCITE). All of this is about reliability though, not OR or SYN which apply to editors not sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz (mywikibiz.com)

I would like to discuss what, if anything outside of WP:ABOUTSELF, MyWikiBiz is reliable for, and whether I should restore a recent deletion at WP:CANCER.

Previous RSN discussions: [64], [65]

Article: Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#MyWikiBiz

Edit in question: [66]

Source in question: h t t p : / / m y w i k i b i z . c o m/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia

Claim that the source was used to support: "Although this essay focuses on spending, not fundraising, it could be argued that the ever-increasing spending is a direct cause of the kind of fund-raising that has generated a storm of criticism.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][ref deleted][9] These complaints have been around for years,[10] leading one member of a major Wikimedia mailing list to automate his yearly complaint about the dishonesty he sees every year in our fundraising banners.[11]"

References

  1. ^ Wikipedia has a ton of money. So why is it begging you to donate yours? The Washington Post
  2. ^ 2015–2016 Q1 fundraising update sparks mailing list debate Wikipedia Signpost
  3. ^ Wikipedia fundraising drive: Should you donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation? International Business Times
  4. ^ The Wikipedia Fundraising Banner: Sad but Untrue Wikipediocracy
  5. ^ Wikipedia Has Millions In The Bank – Why Beg For More? MakeUseOf
  6. ^ Wikipedia – keeping it free. Just pay us our salaries. Wikipediocracy
  7. ^ Should you donate to the Wikimedia Foundation? Effective Altruism
  8. ^ Why does Wikipedia ask for donations even though it has a huge reserve? Quora
  9. ^ A Modest Proposal for Wikimedia’s Future The Wikipedian
  10. ^ Wikipedia doesn't need your money - so why does it keep pestering you? The Register
  11. ^ Fundraising banners (again) Wikimedia-l

So, should I restore the citation? I am not saying that I should or should not; I am leaning towards leaving it out, but I am asking for advice. It seems reliable for the claim "someone criticized Wikipedia", and of course the reliability rules are different for user essays. On the other hand, restoring it would require an exception to allow an external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a userspace essay, it does not have to follow guidance on the reliability of sources.
However I think this might be a misunderstanding, the editor was restoring the page after it had been blanked by a vandal. My guess is that the source was removed as the editor couldn't restore the page without doing so, as the blacklisted site would have stopped them from saving the page. You may also find that you can't re-add the reference, an admin might be able to do so. Otherwise you will have to ask for the URL to be whitelisted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I figured as much, and I realize that I can choose (with admin help) to restore the link. My question remains: should I restore it? Does it add to the essay? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Personal I don't think it adds weight to the essay. Reading through the article I get to having suddenly realized that a majority vote of citizen-members could unseat a corrupt Board of Trustees. There seems to be a presumption of guilt there, after that statement there are statements about irregularities. However the issues mentioned happened after the scrapping of a membership board, so it's saying they always intended to be corrupt but doesn't show any prove of such.
Being more impartial I'd point out that although I agree with parts of the essay I not it's biggest fan, so take my comments with a pinch of salt. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I can't save an edit and bypass the URL blacklist either -- it will also block me from saving the page. The URL has to be specifically added to the spam whitelist (which, I suppose, I can do because it's only normally full-protected). I don't think there is a solid reason for this specific URL to be blacklisted, other than the site itself being blacklisted (of which subsidiary URLs are on the list as a consequence). jp×g🗯️ 02:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
No, it's not a userspace essay - it's an article.
As is common on this noticeboard, I don't think that we even have to address whether the source is reliable as it fails to meet WP:DUE anyway.
For what it's worth, several of the sources cited in the snippet of article text above should also be removed for failing to meet WP:DUE or WP:RS. The whole thing is really close to being original research. ElKevbo (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
OK can someone clarify what is being discussed? I thought it was about these edits[67] to User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer (or more specifically this edit[68] that reverted vandalsim without the MyWikiBiz URL). This is not an article WP:RS/WP:DUE it any other policy about content wouldn't apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
You're right - the links provided as the "Article" and the "Edit in question" lead to two different places. @Guy Macon: Can you please provide clarification? ElKevbo (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I believe this is about the essay, see Guy Macron's comment above about being the Prime Minister of France saying "Does it add to the essay?". The article link is there for background information about MyWikiBiz. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
My apologies for being unclear. I should have written "Related article". Keep in mind that in the future anyone searching RSN for MyWikiBiz.com will see this as the only discussion of that site's reliability, so comments on it as a source for an article as opposed to a user essay would not be out of line. For the record, it is a banned (you get an error if you try to post a link to it) self-published source with strong anti-wikipedia bias and a glaring conflict of interest concerning pretty much any article - they don't reveal which aricles they were paid to edit. As for my question, I now have the advice I asked for and will be leaving it out. Thanks to everyone for the help! --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
For use in articles it would fall somewhere between WP:User generated content and failing the requirements of WP:Self-published sources (unless it could be shown the author was a previously published expert). Either way it is not close to being a reliable source for referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
It is not usable for anything other than ABOUTSELF, because of its content model, which affords control to commercial entities. Every page is presumptively advertorial / PR and not independent.
It is canonically unreliable for commentary on Wikipedia, due to its founder's ban for undisclosed paid editing, and his long-term beef with Jimbo. The same applies to Cade Maetz, at el reg, who has consistently regurgitated false claims made by disputants on Wikipedia, a form of fact-washing. Those disputants whose identities are known to me have all since been banned, usually for outing or harassment. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I won't be using it even in a essay, and now we have something in the reliable sources noticeboard history for anyone thinking about using it in the future to find. TLDR: don't. :) I think we are done here. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@Guy Macon, while you're around, the phrase "one member of a major Wikimedia mailing list" sounds a lot like describing an ordinary Facebook user as "a member of a major social media site". Anybody with an e-mail address can be a member of that mailing list. Maybe just say "one person"?
Or maybe omit it entirely? A fairer statement would probably sound like "Thousands of people automate small donations, and one person automates an annual e-mail message to say that his personal perception of the movement's financial needs does not align with the contents or tone of the fundraising messages". We've got no reason to believe that this unnamed person actually knows what he's talking about. Some of the complainants seem to think that paying the phone bill is all you need to keep a major website online – with luxuries like "hardware" and "operations staff" strictly being optional. There's always an idiot on the internet who will say "They don't really need that many lawyers" without being able to answer questions like "How many lawsuits and threatened lawsuits did those lawyers handle last year?" or "How many legislatures around the world considered banning community governance last year, because they wanted Facebook to hire more staff and didn't realize that Wikipedia's admins are volunteers?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

New York Post: Not fact checking false claims

The New York Post reported, without fact checking, on a book showcased by Israel's president at the Munich Security Conference, who attributed its authorship to Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahar. The title in question is "The End of the Jews," which was actually authored by Al Fidda Mohammed Azzat Mohammed, an Egyptian writer, in 1990.

New York Post article: Israeli prez presents hateful Hamas book found in Gaza: 'The End of the Jews' (nypost.com)

The book in Israel's National library: نهاية اليهود / تأليف: أبو الفداء محمد عزت محمد عارف | عارف، محمد عزت محمد | | The National Library of Israel (nli.org.il)

This shows at the very least a very unreliable fact-checking process. Bowad91017 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

They use words like Herzog claimed the book was authored by instead of just saying the book was authored by, I can't see anywhere where they make the claim Mahmoud al-Zahar wrote the book himself. Scu ba (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The New York Post is already listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as unreliable, and shouldn't be cited anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
NY Post is GUNREL, and we shouldn't be using noted-as-GUNREL sources on heavily sanctioned topic areas - it's a source I've removed from this specific sanctioned topic area previously as just not being up to Wikipedia standard - David Gerard (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
New York Post did not say it was written by Mahmoud al-Zahar. As has already been pointed out, it merely says that Mr Herzog claims that (the same sort of wording appears in NBC News). Sources which actually say it was written by Mahmoud al-Zahar include Jerusalem Post and Haaretz. So the only thing being shown here is how selective the essay-class WP:GUNREL page is. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The Underworld Podcast

I am planning on making an article on Cherif Ould Tahar, a Malian drug kingpin, and I was wondering if The Underworld Podcast would be a good source for this. They recently did an episode on Tahar's drug networks in the Sahel, and the journalists Danny Gold and Sean Williams seem reputable enough to include their coverage for the article. Would the Underworld Podcast for this purpose fit RS? Jebiguess (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I would be hesitant to use it as a source for a BLP. From their channel description:

From ISIS insurgents to MS-13 hitmen; Nigerian traffickers to Indian dons, Danny Gold and Sean Williams have met a lot of shady people in the past decade-or-so. Underworld brings their investigative work and excellent sense of humor together in one slapdash, hastily-edited podcast. Each week the transatlantic pair dives into a different gang, boss or warlord, charting their route to infamy and the systems that allowed them to flourish.

Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The Army and Politics: Afghanistan by Nabi Azimi

My edit was recently reverted in the “Saur Revolution” Wikipedia page as a translation of a book originally written by Afghan Army General Nabi Azimi, was translated by his son Ilyas Azimi and published to AuthorHouse, which is a vanity publishing source. However, I recently found out that the original book (in the Dari language) was not published to AuthorHous but rather a publisher in the Pakistani city of Peshawar in 1995, three years after the collapse of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Would that make it more reliable, considering the original version was not published to AuthorHouse? And if it is more reliable, can I add back what I wrote in the Saur Revolution article? Thank you in advance. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If the original wasn't self-published then that's fine - that there is a self-published translation doesn't change that. NadVolum (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@Left guide I think this means it would be okay for me to make a revert, right? AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Sure, that would be fine. Left guide (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Happy editing! AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Electronic Intifada

STILL GENERALLY UNRELIABLE
In this discussion, Wikipedians consider the reliability of pro-Palestinian site Electronic Intifada. The site is openly partisan, and it doesn't reliably distinguish between the facts and its opinion of those facts. It is, perhaps, more extremely partisan than most Western media. Previous consensus was that it's generally unreliable, and this discussion doesn't change that. There's a game attempt to deprecate the source, but deprecation on Wikipedia is an unusual measure that needs clear and explicit consensus to enact, and that isn't to be found in this discussion. There's also a game attempt to move it up to additional considerations, but again consensus for that isn't to be found here.
In closing this RfC I have disregarded a certain amount of input from editors who've been shown to be in bad faith, and I have not attributed a position to the editor who voted for "no consensus".
I hope this is helpful and I hope it fully resolves the issue. Questions, comments, criticism, and complaints about this close are welcome and should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 09:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

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 Electronic Intifada?

The last discussion was in 2018 and can be found here. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Option 2: The previous discussion on the Electronic Intifada (EI) was not a particularly sophisticated discussion and needs revisiting: it was not a formal RFC, and the opening statement was somewhat rambling, but one key takeaway is that EI does not appear to have generated serious concerns about its adherence to factual accuracy. Media bias fact check is not a reliable source, but is a usefully indicative resource, and it "could not find any instance where EI directly failed a fact check from major fact checking sources". The site goes on to note that only rates "Mostly Factual" as opposed to "High" in terms of its reporting "due to a lack of transparency regarding funding, as well as strongly loaded emotional wording that may be misleading – so again, pertaining to bias, not factual error. EI is distinctly biased (as all media sources are) – this is certain – and this was the principle charge laid against it in the previous discussion, but bias ≠ unreliable, per WP:BIASEDSOURCES, but merely demands attribution. In the case of EI, the direction of its bias, and its specificity to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so obvious that it hardly bears mentioning, but option 2 allows for the formal caveating of the source and noting the attribution requirement. I would note that the first naysayer in the last discussion was the now notorious sock puppeteer User:Icewhiz wielding a Huffington Post opinion piece as the only evidence of factual issues, and, per WP:HUFFPOCON, Huffington Post contributions have themselves been deemed unreliable (in a subsequent 2020 RFC). Many of the following votes merely cite the source's bias, which again, should be addressed through attribution, but does not relate directly to reliability. There are a couple of editorial issues that are drummed up, including a piece from 2008 with a misleading quote that has since been caveated at the bottom of the piece, and another quibbled-over piece regarding a statement and its attribution dating to 2002. However, that in 2018 the best evidence of EI's unreliability that could be drummed up are some relatively isolated poorly attributed statements from 2002 and 2008 suggests to me that the evidence of factual inaccuracy is very threadbare indeed. WP:GUNREL means "generally" unreliable, not demonstrably unreliable once every decade or so. I'm not sure I've seen a bar as high as this applied to any source. To maintain the GUNREL rating for EI, a more serious discussion is required, and some significantly more substantial and damning evidence needs to be provided sustaining the charges of factual inaccuracy or manipulation, as opposed to merely lambasting it for its bias, which is utterly transparent – if only in its name alone, with which it really wears its heart on its sleeve about its leaning. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
MBFC is not a useful way of gauging source reliability. It is the opinion of one random guy, no different to the opinion of the average Wikipedia contributor. That said, I have no opinion on the reliability of this publication. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Option 3 If they have no history of retractions or corrections then I would assume there are factual accuracy concerns. Even the best publications make mistakes due to the nature of publishing quickly and issuing corrections after publication. Since no one has disputed Markowitz's important point that the publication has a poor reputation for fact checking I would consider EI not reliable for statements of fact, but potentially citable for expert opinions per Nableezy. Cornsimpel (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4: Existing consensus is that the source is generally unreliable for facts, as discussed, for example, in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_250#Electronic_Intifada_(Again). This source is not only extremely biased but also has a very poor reputation for fact-checking. There were plenty of examples brought up in previous discussions. The fact that the website is cited in existing articles, usually for opinions with attribution, has no relevance to its tendency, or lack thereof, to provide accurate and trustworthy facts. Citing these kinds of sources for matters of fact would compromise Wikipedia's reputation as a trustworthy reference. There is also strong consensus that The Electronic Intifada is a partisan source, although this is independent of its reliability. If something is worthy of publishing in Wikipedia, then there will surely be better RS options. Marokwitz (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Marokwitz: If you are saying it is generally unreliable, why have you said option 4, which is deprecation - something else. To deprecate a source, you need to provide some justification, not just your impression based on old, very outdated evidence, part of which was countered in the prior discussion, and which was further discussed in my statement. You have not progressed the discussion on the detail in and way, but merely opined in it. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
    Al Mayadeen and Press TV are very similar to Electronic Intifada. In comparison, the tabloid Daily Star (UK), though not a top-tier source, is considered more reliable. These three have been deprecated due to their one-sided reporting and loose approach for fact checking. Examples I saw recently in EI include coverage of Israa Jarbis where Electronic Intifada fails to mention she has seriously injured a police officer; relying on a debunked community-noted tweet by Twitter user SyrianGirl as a source in a recent article; and reporting on helicopters shooting at Nova partygoers based on a Haaretz article, while failing to disclose the police's rebuttal of this claim that was published on the same day.
    Overall, evidence shows that the site has a non-existent approach to fact-checking and publishing formal error corrections. Publishing the truth doesn't seem to be a priority compared to advocacy of a specific narrative, thus I believe it should be deprecated to save our editors' time. Marokwitz (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
    Evidence stands taller with some actual links for verification. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • No consensus. No statements made by the source have been given by the opener of the RfC. What are we supposed to evaluate here? jp×g🗯️ 23:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3 - it publishes mostly opinion, and where that opinion is by an expert in the field it should be able to be used. But for its news reporting, it is reporting on other outlets reports. I would say, as I did in the last discussion, that when they report something it will usually be found in other sources, otherwise I place it basically on the opposite end of Arutz Sheva and would not use it as a source for facts. nableezy - 23:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Option 4 - A) Electronic Intifada is a partisan news site that has a recent and long history of biased partisan reporting and appears to be pursuing political goals through its newspapers.
It also appears that it seems to support armed struggle and removal of organizations deemed terrorist by Western countries from terror lists.
In August 2020, Electronic Intifada published an article by Samidoun coordinator Khaled Barakat, there they wrote “Association with the Palestinian armed resistance and its political parties is not a cause for shame or a justification for repression…boycott campaigns and popular organizing are not alternatives to armed resistance but interdependent tactics of struggle. Any meaningful defense of the Palestinian people must clearly uphold the right to resist colonialism by all means, including armed struggle – and support efforts to remove Palestinian resistance groups from lists of ‘terrorist organizations.’”
Ali Abunimah, the site’s co-founder and current executive director, stated the following regarding Zionism : “one of the worst forms of anti-Semitism [sic] in existence today” and claims that it is the “continuation in spirit” of the Holocaust. Abunimah has compared Israel to Nazi Germany [69] , he also commented the following on a Holocaust survivor (called Elie Wiesel a “moral fraud and huckster”).
Furthermore, from an article in 18 January 2023 it appears the EI supports the incorporation of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, considered terrorist organizations by US, EU... into the PLO.
"But for that storm to sweep away the old, it needs direction. So far, Palestinian discontent with their leaders has not thrown up any clear alternative strategy behind which parties and new political forces can agree to unite.
Any such strategy needs to answer several crucial questions, notably what outcome to seek and how best to get there, how to unite the main factions behind a new vision for Palestinian liberation and how to ensure that Palestinians in occupied territory can endure under different political conditions.
It will also need to find a way to incorporate Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other factions considered “terror groups” in the west into the PLO while managing the diplomatic and financial fallout."
In November 2022, EI hosted a podcast called “How Zionists collaborated with the Nazis.” in the podcast, “Zionists during that time not only were not bothered about the Holocaust, they actively tried to stop anyone who wanted to provide a refuge from doing so.”
In August 2022, Abunimah has said the following in an interview : “Israel always has to kill Palestinians because it is an illegitimate settler-colonial regime that faces constant resistance from the people whose land it is occupying, colonizing and stealing…the regular shedding of Palestinian blood is a necessary component of maintaining the existence of Israel.”
In June 2021, EI Associate Editor Nora Barrows participated in a conference, “Challenging Apartheid in Palestine: Reclaiming the Narrative, Formulating A Vision,” hosted by the Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University. It was reported that sponsors, participating and conference , were linked to various terror groups, including, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).
In conclusion, Option 4 is the most relevant, considering EI's published content both historically as concluded in previous Reliable Sources discussions as well as recently as shown above; therefore one assumes that this source meets the criteria of Deprecation. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) This editor has been topic-banned for having most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor in this topic area
@Homerethegreat: I'm sorry. What is the point behind the quotations above? You just quote passages without making any points about how they relate to reliability. "one assumes that this source meets the criteria of Deprecation." - don't assume: assumption was the problem with the prior discussion, and now you're copy-pasting the problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. All the above shows is that EI's ideological leaning is pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. Opinions are always a matter of debate and can't be used for fact anyway (given WP:RSEDITORIAL) and you haven't shown any evidence of getting the facts wrong. VR talk 15:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Features section only, anything else only if it is a subject matter expert, and always with attribution. I don't believe that this source is guilty of falsification but some material is fairly heavily biased, so use with due care and attention.Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
    Clarifying that means 2 and then 3 (not 4).Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3. They don't seem to do much original reporting. I give them 3 rather than 4 for the odd story that might serve as a useful justification for a statement, but I cannot see that happening very often. Most of their articles seem to be either one-sided reinterpretation of the news reported elsewhere or personal opinions. Epa101 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Bad RFC Where is the prior discussion? Why is this going to a RfC without a recent discussion or a discussion of how this source is being used? We need examples of misuse before starting a RfC.
Springee (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 (possibly 2): There are a number of major issues with EI, which it is better to see as a group blog rather than a news site. First, it does not adequately distinguish between opinion and news (it has a category "features" which has /news in its URL and a category "opinion and analysis" with /opinion in the url; both of these are mainly opinion).The simple additional consideration would be to treat all articles as opinion pieces and therefore attribute. Second, it rarely presents new factual information. The "features" pieces by guest contributors in Palestine count as reportage, which are the most useful and fact-based articles, but the "features" pieces by their own (mostly US-based) team are second-hand analysis of material reported elsewhere. I would say that this secondary material should not be used citing them but rather that the original source should be used if and only if it's reliable (many of its sources are very unreliable, e.g. deprecated Grayzone), and that EI is not sufficiently reliable for it to count towards assessing noteworthiness. (Unsurprisingly, disinformation and conspiracy sites also republish EI articles. E.g. David Icke's website carried an EI article "How the Israel lobby fakes anti-Semitism" by Asa Winstanley.[70]) Third, I think that this is one of those cases where bias and reliability bleed into each other: EI frequently goes into conspiracy theory territory (this is especially true of its associate editor Asa Winstanley).[71] For instance, its support of antisemitic conspiracy theorist David Miller has led to its reportage being described as antisemitic by the Community Security Trust (CST),[72] and CST and anti-fascist researchers Hope Not Hate have described its reporting of Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party as conspiracy theory.[73] Winstanley frequently appears on Iran's PressTV, on a show produced by David Miller dedicated to antisemitic conspiracy theories.[74] Fourth, I think there might be instances where it can be seen to have been actively dishonest. In 2011, along with the Guardian, it falsely claimed that the CST had made up some quotes; the Guardian corrected their story but EI didn't.[75] Several right-wing monitors (CAMERA, HonestReporting, etc) have presented further examples, but I'm reviewing those as I don't see them as reliable sources either. I'll come back here when I have, and if these claims are compelling I'd say option 3 for definite, otherwise option 2 might be fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Couple more data points. 1. Here are three biased (right-wing), probably unreliable and slightly outdated sources itemising several issues with EI: NGO Monitor,[76] HonestReporting,[77] CAMERA.[78] It's hard to disentangle political criticisms from exposing inaccuracies there, so I'll leave these for other editors to review themselves. 2. I hadn't realised the extent to which EI is integrated with sources that we deprecate. For instance, it heavily uses Al-Mayadeen as a source,[79][80] it is in turn hosted by Al-Mayadeen,[81] it gives a frequent platform to Max Blumenthal of Grayzone,[82] its staff also contribute to Sputnik, ZeroHedge, Russia Insider, MintPress, etc,[83] and are used as talking heads by Sputnik.[84] In this PolitiFact fact check of a fake news story circulated in the current Gaza conflict, by a far right anti-vaxxer, EI was one of the sources he shared, but the fact check does not actually describe the EI article as false. 3. On the other hand, I've found a couple of instances of its use as a source by reliable sources: Columbia Journalism Review from 2010,[85] Associated Press from 2013,[86] and India Today recently.[87] BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
😮‍💨 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What do you mean by calling David Miller a conspiracy theorist (coded language in context -'Jews control the media,' the meme runs, being implied),Bob. A tribunal has just rendered its verdict that his dismissal from his university, following a intense media campaign using Jewish student assertions that his lectures on Zionism made them feel uncomfortable, had been improper. It is not controversial that either Israel or communities in the so-called diaspora militate vigorously, networking, to counter any perceived anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian 'bias' (while remaining deafeningly silent about the devastations of occupation, as Peter Beinart protested with anguish on his blog yesterday.) This extends to coordinating in private online groups how to get dirt on critics which is then sent on to their employers in the hope they will be fired, as in the recent Antoinette Lattoufcase. If one notes how endemic this is (per Mearzheimer and Walt's unrefuted academic analysis of Israeli lobbying groups 2006) one is summarily branded as an antisemite or conspiracy theorist. No. It's normal, however distasteful, and has been so since Adam Smith First remarked on it among merchant associations. All groups do it, only some are more effective than others.Nishidani (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The regional employment tribunal verdict on Miller's employment status is not relevant to the question of whether or not he is a conspiracy theorist; that fact should be obvious from his articles and monologues on PressTV and in MintPress where he promotes the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry along with several antisemitic conspiracy theories. Your speculation on the extent to which Jews in what you name "the so-called diaspora" lobby is even less relevant to the question of whether EI is a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
That conspiracy theory claim is bolder then what is currently stated on his biography, which refers only to allegations. I suspect no more is stated there because it is unsupportable in wikivoice. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Nishidani, could you elaborate on what you mean by “ so-called diaspora”? FortunateSons (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Why? What has it to do with EI reliability? Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Depending on the interpretation, it may be an innocuous linguistic difference or harmful speech that may be a conduct issue. Asking for clarification is appropriate in such a case, no? FortunateSons (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Go troll somewhere else. I'll strike that and AGF.Selfstudier (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Good grief. One more fishing expedition to trout for s/flippery evidence before AE that there is an odour of antisemitism sniffable from one word I used. My maternal great great grandmother was half-Indian so I guess that would give me grounds for asserting I am part of the subcontinental Indian diaspora, were I to ignore every other line of my promiscuous origins. Bob. Arthur Koestler and numerous other committed Zionists believed in the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi descent, as you must know having read that article. A huge constituency of Jews are convinced of the truth of a mythistorical fairy tale of their origins (the 'diaspora') in the southern Levant, with the same irrational tenacity and stout neglect of the complexities of real evidence you deplore in Miller, for whom I have no brief. To be convinced, through sheer mental laziness or studied historical ignorance, of a fiction of origins does not automatically allow others to deduce things like conspiracy theories.This is not the place for further discussion on that.Nishidani (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I mean your original statement had plausible deniability but you're pretty much saying here that you believe in the pseudoscientific Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry which has an entire section on its use in antisemitism. Even if we assume what you're saying is not antisemitic (the Jews aren't real Israelites!), it's still pretty disruptive to insult peoples' racial identities by calling Ashkenazi Jews a so-called diaspora and their identity a mythistorical fairy tale in a discussion at RSN.
I think if I started using terms like so-called Palestinian refugees at every RSN discussion I would get a warning very fast, so I think you should stop using terms like so-called diaspora that do nothing but inflame tensions in this topic area. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Streuth!Did you trouble your time to read any of the pages you allude to? I stepped in to a chaotic Khazars article, caught between editors who crammed it with 'stuff'/newspaper waffle asserting it was nothing but an antisemitic attack on Israel's legitimacy, and editors who pushed the idea its 'truth' left Israel's reputation in ruins. I rid the page of all of this to-and froing polemical bullshit mostly by people who flaunt their politics but apparently couldn't give a rat's rectum for real history, and wrote the summation of the abundant high scholarship on that empire which you see now, including the historical details of the way antisemitic nutters used it to attack Jews, a fringe view. And for doing that,-2months of focused reading on a topic rather than hanging round kibitzing airily on talk pages- I'm now anti-semitic? It is intolerable that across numerous pages, many editors who should know better but who apparently have no argument, or informed historical knowledge, play the cheap antisemitic card whenever Jewish related topics are touched on and, attacking the presumed hidden motives of others, dispose of them, and serious scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Let's stay on topic here. Nishidani's talk page would be a better place for this conversation, if it really must be had at all. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm mainly interested in if EI has been guilty of false reporting or antisemitism, and I tried following your first few links and I didn't get the sense. First, I'd take CST's allegations against EI with a grain of salt; given that CST believes anti-zionism=antisemitism they are the ideological opponents of EI. And as you correctly pointed out, HonestReporting, CAMERA etc also have an axe to grind against EI. VR talk 15:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per Nableezy and Bob above, and Alaexis below. While not outright lying (as far as I'm aware), and while yes, all sources are biased, EI's partisan to the point that its usefulness can be heavily questioned (see exaggeration, loaded language, reliance on questionable sources, omission of certain details, and so on) and most if not all of its factual reporting can be found in far more reliable, less-outright-partisan sources. I'm also not sold by the proposer's usage of MBFC, which they themselves bluntly state isn't entirely reliable. The Kip 08:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    Would also like to emphasize the latter bits of what Bob's written - the heavy reliance on already-deprecated sources such as Grayzone and Al-Mayadeen is worrying, and I could probably be convinced to vote for deprecation here as well. The Kip 05:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3, see my comments below re the lack of separation between opinion and news and various outrageous claims made by the source. No evidence has been presented that changed my opinion in either direction. Alaexis¿question? 08:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3
EI is an overtly biased outlet and as pointed out by other editors, it deploys conspiratorial websites as its sources. This makes that website unreliable. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 4. Mostly-opinion sites that cite debunked tweets should not be used in WP. All the true info EI has is better reported by other sources. It should not be used. Zanahary (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
One debunked tweet has been mentioned - if there are others; perhaps you could make mention of them. However, one embedded (not even voiced) debunked tweet alone does not demonstrate repeat inaccuracy and is far from approaching cause for deprecation. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 4, unreliable and slanted beyond repair. if EI is the only source where someone can find something covered, it has likely been fabricated. ValarianB (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 3. The outlet has the word "intifada" in the name. That alone makes it clear this is an option 3. Cursory reading of the sources provided by Homerethegreat makes it obvious this is far too biased to be trusted. Citing it in an article would be like citing Stormfront. The reason why we don't cite biased websites that support violent terrorists is because they have a very strong incentive to lie. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 2. Per Iskander323's discussion point below it seems like at least some of the content EI publishes is well-sourced and journalistic and given that reputable journalists publish with EI it seems unlikely that they publish outright fabrications as if they are news. The organization overall has a clear agenda, but it is important to recognize that that many other sources taken as reliable are likely either to lack coverage of Palestinian issues or to (intentionally or not) have coverage slanted against Palestinians. Groceryheist (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 based on publishing stuff like this. Cheers, Number 57 21:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
    What is the specific point of inaccuracy that is being pointed to here that is indicative of unreliability? An uncommon, but by no means isolated headline take, regardless of the level of controversy is not – in of itself – anything. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
    Mondoweiss (your link) isn't a reliable source either. The mass rape claims are agreed upon by all the reliable sources I could find. The BBC, NBC news, The New York Times, AP news, and The Washington Post agree that there is evidence that rape happened. When extremely pro-Palestinian biased sources such as Mondoweiss or Electronic Intifada construct fictional realities where Palestinians didn't rape Israelis, because that is inconvenient for their POV, that's when we consider those sources unreliable due to their ideological bias. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
    Compare like with like. Mondoweiss is fine with attribution (they don't make stuff up) and your links do not support "mass rape" (and are in addition hedged about with one caveat and another) which is what M. is saying there is a lack of evidence for. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
    Since this isn't a discussion on Mondoweiss I'll avoid encouraging the tangent further, but EI lied that it was the Israeli govt that did October 7th. [88] [89] There's also the borderline Holocaust denial where EI lauds a book that blames Zionist Jews for the Holocaust. [90] EI also supported the October 7th attacks. [91]
    IMHO it's pretty simple. This is an identical situation to The Daily Shoah or The Daily Stormer. EI pushes conspiracy theories, deny well-evidenced atrocities (mass rapes), engage in Holocaust inversion (especially by saying the Jews brought it among themselves), and even supported October 7th on that very day. That makes it an unreliable source. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
    This is far closer to a misrepresention of those pieces than it is to an accurate summary of their contents. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 at least and probably Option 4. The specific falsehoods mentioned above aside, EI has a long reputation of providing misleading coverage, and if used, needs to be used with caution if at all. There's nothing, if at all, that EI would report on or cover that a more mainstream RS, even one that is biased, would not. When called out the outlet does not reliably issue corrections, but in some cases doubles down. For example, misquoting a misleading and incendiary quote from an Israeli official, then claiming others misquoted first instead of doing basic journalism and seeking to verify [92], mistranslations of Hebrew interviews that make exceptional claims [93] (then portraying it as reported fact instead of opinion on its Twitter [94]. It frequently relies on conspiracy rags like The Cradle and The Greyzone for single-sources and misleading reporting. There are many other examples. Editors voted to deprecate another activist outlet MEMRI for similar malpractice, even though EI pruportedly holds itself to a higher journalistic standard. I have no problem with biased sources, but there are far more and better ones than EI, which is more activist than journalist and misleading at best. Longhornsg (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
    Can you cite any RS that have accused EI of false or misleading reporting? VR talk 15:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per Longhornsg. It's too biased and unreliable to be used. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - Per @Marokwitz. Dovidroth (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)This editor has been banned for having most likely made proxy edits for a banned editor in this topic area
  • Option 4 Biased, unreliable, advocacy website. Coretheapple (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - Hell no, for the reasons expressed above. Neutralitytalk 23:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per @Nableezy. Yr Enw (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4: Biased website with blatant activism. Let'srun (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 One of the last American sources defending basic human rights. Fakecontinent (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
This isn't really a good argument for its reliability. We don't use sources just because they're perceived to be on the right side by some. — Czello (music) 12:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Just realised this user has been blocked as a sockpuppet – striking comment consequently. — Czello (music) 12:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Had an edit conflict doing the same. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4 for being quite obvious activism. As one of the comments in the article's reception section says, it "is too biased to be of much use to mainstream publications". That includes us. — Czello (music) 12:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3 per the arguments given by @Nableezy and @Selfstudier. Where they are only publishing opinions of non-experts then we should consider that they would be WP:GUNREL, but don't we already have Wiki policy on that already? Where they are publishing the the words of subject matter expert, I think we shouldn't limit ourselves from being able to use the source with attribution. TarnishedPathtalk 13:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4 as I may be the resident 'expert'(if that is a positive or negative may be in the eye of the beholder), I have some thoughts:
The good
a) rarely, there are genuine subject matter experts writing for them, and there may be an argument to be made to exemptions in those cases (most notably, Ilan Pappé, who is certainly a controversial historian, but also definitely an expert in his field) if the source is depreciated (credit goes to @Nableezy who mentioned it first)
b) rarely publicise orignial content, such as No Search, No Rescue
The bad (in no particular order):
a) an effectively minimal standard for media reviews, making it only not significantly more selective that a blog. As mentioned by others, it is effectively a blog and should not be used as way of establishing notability.
b) poor quality of research, reporting, failure to correct or retract stories that did not substantiate, poor sourcing, and aggregation of information from other unreliable sources as facts
c) other issues discussed at length above, particularly by @Longhornsg, @Chess (who voted 3, but I would consider this to be an argument for 4), and @The Kip), @Homerethegreat@Bobfrombrockley, @Marokwitz and others, to whose expertise I will refer for the sake of length.
The ugly
a) aggressive advocacy
b) associations with people who can reasonably be described as antisemitic under some modern definitions
c) lack of an apparent editorial process or failure thereof
d) not used by RS for Bias (per @Czello)
Recommendation
1. Depreciate the source, but potentially allow an exception to be made for experts in accordance with common sense
2. If it is found to ‚only‘ be unreliable, it should not be used for anything even tangentially related to Israel-Palestine, Jews/Judaism/Antisemitism, contentious topics and generally not be used for facts except in very limited circumstances governed by common sense with the exception of 1.
Additionally, using them to establish notability is not appropriate and should be avoided at all costs. FortunateSons (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Electonic Intifada spreads truther conspiracy theories, like denying the Oct. 7 attacks. The Washington Post recently covered it: "An Electronic Intifada article from November also argues that “most” Israeli casualties on Oct. 7 were perpetrated by the Israeli army, basing the story, in part, on a YouTube clip of a man who describes himself as a former Israeli general." Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
    While the claim you mention seems implausible, it should be noted that given that the events of October 7 remain an uninvestigated black box, the objection here is simply to an assertion that the burden of proof is yet to weigh. Reliability arguments with a view to deprecation must be based on demonstrable and repeated misleading factual errancy, typically in combination with evidence of a source's lack of repentance when the truth comes to light. I see neither aspect in evidence here. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
    Note that the Washington Post doesn't link to any article on EI that actually argues "that “most” Israeli casualties on Oct. 7 were perpetrated by the Israeli army". That is because they can't. To put it bluntly: WP lied. The closest is an article [95] that claims "The latest revelations confirm The Electronic Intifada’s reporting since 7 October that many – if not most – of the Israeli civilians killed that day were killed by Israel itself". Which is quite different.
    And I agree with Iskandar: "the events of October 7 remain an uninvestigated black box": EI have asked for an independet international investigation, but Israel vetos that. Huldra (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 or 3. We don't really have an option for this, but I'd support not using it anywhere for anything except WP:EXPERTSPS and for sources that are cited by experts in scholarship (which I think would all be EXPERTSPS anyway but I'm not 100% sure). I think that means "not reliable, except for exceptions," which could be categorized as 2 or 3, I'm not sure which is more appropriate.
As for reasons: first, scholarly contributors. Ilan Pappe is a contributor to E-I, for example: [96]. That's the only name on the list I recognize (because I'm not that well-read), but I bet if we went through the list one by one we'd find Pappe was not the only bona fide historian on that list.
Second, it seems to be well-cited by historians. I searched my little pile of scholarship, and E-I is cited by: Pappe, of course, also Nur Masalha, Rosemary Sayigh, Nadim Rouhana, Areej Sabbagh-Khoury, and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, among others.
So in sum, I see the problems that are raised by others as legitimate problems, but the fact that this publisher is contributed to and used by so many scholars convinces me that we should not deprecate. Levivich (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
This is a good solution. The list of contributors actually includes a lot of experts who we might want to cite (e.g. Refaat Alareer, Joseph Massad and Steven Salaita, as well as respect commentators (e.g. Budour Youssef Hassan, Patrick Strickland). However, (a) I suspect the material they publish at EI is lower quality than that which gets published at other outlets, and (b) it's noticable that this list is extremely old: most of these names have not published there for years, and practically none of the commentators on the front page now are listed there. Looking at the front page now, I see for example Bryce Greene, a Substack blogger whose career highlight to date was giving a Russian propaganda pitch about Nordstream at a UN meeting;[97] or Mohamed Elmaazi, who worked for Sputnik until recently and also writes for TheCanary.[98] So we need a solution that enables us to cite genuine experts when puplished at EI, while excluding the conspiracy theorists and fringe bloggers. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2: I am persuaded by Iskandar323's comment; the 2018 RfC had some irregularities, and attribution is the existing policy and more appropriate solution for managing the citation of biased sources. As TarnishedPath comments, non-expert opinions are already handled by other policies. Articles from published subject matter experts need not be marked against by an over-broad GUNREL assessment. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4. "Intifada" in the title is a dead giveaway. The reasoning above by Marokwitz and others is persuasive. Not a hard call, especially for a source that will be used for contentious topics. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Figureofnine: Sorry, what exactly is it, persuant to source reliability policy, that having "Intifada" in the source name is a dead giveaway of? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3. None of the arguments presented for deprecation make the grade. Arguments on the basis of bias misunderstand the relationship between bias and unreliability in wikipedia policy. Of course this is an advocacy site and it should be treated with the same caution that all advocacy sites are treated. Zerotalk 01:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Reviewing this source it has habitually published falsehoods, from when it was first created. For example, they repeatedly (1, 2, 3, 4) claimed that Palestinian officials had not claimed that 500 people were massacred at Jenin; this is demonstrably false.
Below I have also presented a separate example, where it claims that every Jew has two citizenships, one Israeli and one in their own country - the level of falsehood in this claim is staggering, ignoring both the long-term sustained presence in the Palestine region of Jewish people prior to the formation of Israel, and the plight of the Mizrahi Jews who lost their citizenship to countries like Syria and Iraq when they fled or were expelled. BilledMammal (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
That is not what the article says. And your personal outrage about some column is not and has never been a criteria for deprecation. nableezy - 02:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
That is not what the article says. Assuming you are referring to the second article, it says every Jewish man and woman can have dual citizenship, one in their own country and one in mine. BilledMammal (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
And you wrote it claims that every Jew has two citizenships. And that is about the Law of Return. nableezy - 02:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
That's splitting hairs; you're right I mistyped, but the difference between "eligible for two" and "having two" is effectively irrelevant in this context, with neither of them making her claim any more accurate. BilledMammal (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
It kind of is relevant because you only really have dual loyalty if you are a citizen of two countries. It's a clear misrepresentation either way (many countries don't allow dual citizenship and it implies Jews in Israel have a country of origin they can go back to), but it's not the blatant anti-Semitic canard it would otherwise have been if it said all Jews do have dual loyalties. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Even if it weren’t accurate it’s an opinion piece and nobody is inserting that opinion as fact in our articles, making that another example of cherry picking opinion pieces the cherry pickers don’t like to attempt to remove the articles by experts in the field they cannot otherwise challenge. nableezy - 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Even if it weren’t accurate? Are you saying that it might be accurate?
it’s an opinion piece That's not clear to me. It's not labeled as an opinion piece, and while it reads as one so does every article on that site. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
A leading question is an odd way to reply to somebody saying your point is entirely irrelevant and need not be examined past its irrelevancy. nableezy - 14:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
These are rather weak examples to support deprecation, which is a very severe classification.
"The level of falsehood in this claim is staggering" Really? The full paragraph reads: "Everything — home, heritage, life, resources, hope — has been robbed from us [the Palestinians] to atone for Germany’s sins. To this day, we languish in refugee camps that are not fit for human beings so that every Jewish man and woman can have dual citizenship, one in their own country and one in mine [Palestine]."
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree, any reader with a base level of understanding could be reasonably expected to understand that the writer in the bit you quote if referring to the law of return. A claim that "The level of falsehood in this claim is staggering", really is hyperbole. TarnishedPathtalk 23:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Option 4 Per BilledMammal and others. This extremely slanted source has no value whatsoever here. Toa Nidhiki05 02:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Options 2/3.'I occasionally read EI, but have never used it on wiki. I read it because quite often its articles cover that extensive terrain of the otherwise extensively unreported realities of the conflict studiously ignored by the 'mainstream', and this alerts one to what is missing in articles. Very occasionally I find incisive articles, some written by its founder, which turn out to anticipate what has been diligently ignored, but which emerges in mainstream reportage after weeks or a month. I don't use that, but I think the option for such selective citation on those rare occasions, should be allowed. In this conflict's general mainstream coverage, glossing over or passing over in silence an abundant number of facts relevant to Palestinian perceptions of these realities means the facts we prioritize are those that tend to lend greater weight to the Israeli narrative' experience of the conflict. Newspapers are not very factual except in the kindergarten sense of the word. One should remind oneself at times that in the undertow of any fact, one will find the gritty shingles of a theory implied by it, to misquote Keynes.
So one duly, on such occasions, digs deeper to find a glimmering of more authoritative sources following up a trail you often cine on EI. Deprecation is ridiculous. Reliable source arguments are very tricky here. We privilege the factual, yes, and advisedly that is our priority. But mainstream sources don't cover much of what goes on. One could not write a neutral and balanced article on this conflict, for example, by using our dominant RS here The Times of Israel,Jerusalem Post,Ynet and even Haaretz mostly, for the other side to the conflict has been, if we are to believe critical Israeli analysts, virtually disappeared. Elisheva Goldberg,What the Israeli Public Doesn't See Jewish Currents 7 February 2024. Nishidani (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2/3 per Levivich, exceptions to unreliability for subject matter experts used on the website means we should not deprecate, plus it is used by historians, so clearly it has value, and per Nishidani, it offers a valuable POV which is easily absent given systemic bias here. starship.paint (RUN) 08:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 They are biased, one has to be careful with that and attribute them. But I don't see them as particularly manipulative which can cause real problems with biased sites. To see what manipulative means see [99], that inclines me to give them an extra green flag for the service they did for Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (secondary: Option 3). A problem with Wikipedia's reliable sources-criteria, is that they are absolute. IMO, how reliable a source is, is connected with how close its POV is to what it reports. And reporting their opinions, is different from reporting their actions. Ie., I would never take Arutz Sheva reporting on either Hamas opinions or actions to be 100% correct. But if Arutz Sheva reported that such and such an Israeli settler leader said "whatever", I would take that to be probably correct. However, if Arutz Sheva reported on Israeli settlers actions, well, at least to me it seems as if AS' premise is that all Israeli settlers actions are justified, and/or harmless. (Same for, say Tehran Times or Jerusalem Post: some areas you can presume them to be correct, others not.).
Since EI is used as a source for many academic scolars (see above), Option 4 seems draconian. If wikipedia chooses option 4, well, then "Being more Catholic than the Pope", is an expression that comes to mind, Huldra (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2. There is obvious bias and the normal considerations about such sources (e.g. attribution, better sourcing, BLP) apply, but there isn't evidence of publishing outright falsehoods or similar issues that would require deprecation. Subject matter experts are an obvious exception that should be allowed, which they would not be under deprecation. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - The source is biased, but it also publishes the opinions of subject-matter experts, scholars and researchers, which are useful for WP. Ijon Tichy (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2-ish. First of all, EI is very clearly biased. That oughta be taken for granted by everyone just based on the title. Second, their list of contributors is linked in an above comment, and it includes respected experts like Ilan Pappe and Joseph Massad alongside cranks like Max Blumenthal. So I think that in addition to a note for bias we should say that reliablility should be determined mainly by the author, because it appears that while EI absolutely do publish respected subject matter experts, and I'm convinced by the above evidence that they are doing some sort of editorial fact-checking, I'm less convinced that they're doing enough of it to qualify as fully reliable even given their biases. Loki (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I should also say because this was an issue in the first closing: I'd be fine with Option 3 but I explicitly oppose Option 4, and see it as worse in this case than Option 1 (which I also don't see as acceptable). Loki (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Terrible title for an relatively new on the block organisation and seemingly gets worse from there. scope_creepTalk 12:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Scope creep: The title is not a policy-related reason for anything, and your note only gets worse from there. What do you mean 'new on the block'? EI has been around since 2001. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

This noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of sources in context. What kind of content do you want to use and for which article? Alaexis¿question? 20:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


The regular discussions are about the sources in context, but the RFCs are general and a simple neutral question with the four options. See the other RFCs further up the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The point stands. EI is cited as a source in several hundred articles, so its status at RSP has not presented an obstacle to its use. Is there an actual, live issue about its use or misuse as a source? Otherwise a new RFC is not in order. Banks Irk (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
The previous discussion was not a formal RFC with the four normal choices; Option 2, i.e. a halfway house was not presented; and the discussion was swamped by accounts now blocked as sock puppets/puppeteers. It was a not a level of discussion that should stand as the bar for this source. Obviously being labelled as GUNREL has a long-term impact on whether the source is deemed usable, with or without caveats. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

One more thing, is there a way to distinguish opinions from news published by the EI? E.g., is this article an opinion piece or news [100]? Here are some of the quotes from it (a) But we are to believe the Israelis had no idea [of the October 7 attack that] was planned right under their noses? They probably knew. And they waited for it., (b) The vast network of Zionist organizations acts as appendages of the Israeli state that extend into all our lives around the world. Alaexis¿question? 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Not in the url from what I can tell, but other than by style, each piece has a short author bio at the end. The example you've shared has a conversational tone that betrays it as clear opinion, but beyond that it is attributed to an external party - the director of a literature festival. This analysis, on the other hand, is attributed to various contributors and "Asa Winstanley is an investigative journalist and associate editor with The Electronic Intifada", so we know it's in-house. This colour piece appears to be not in-house, but from a journalist and presumably commissioned, but it's a colour piece, so not news. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
So I assume that the analysis is the kind of content you'd like to use on Wikipedia. It's long and uses all kind of sources which range from very reliable to complete garbage, but these are some of the highlights
  • Non-sequitur bordering on fake news. How is an opinion of a retired officer who did not take part in the fighting becomes a confirmation that Israel killed most Israeli civilians?
  • Opinion-piece-style statements in the supposed analysis piece: [Josep Borrell] had no regard for the dead women, children and elderly of Palestine, not to mention the men.
  • Extreme bias: the hostages are described as detainees in the custody of Palestinian fighters
  • Usage of dodgy sources: they mention an anonymous letter published by Mondoweiss
I wouldn't support deprecating the EI, unless there are proven examples of publishing deliberate falsehoods, but it falls far short of reliable source standards. Alaexis¿question? 11:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
I believe I set out by noting that its bias is clear. The question remains not one of its opinion, but one of factual inaccuracy. And, e.g., the "one of the highest level confirmations" statement, while clearly leaning into a viewpoint, is still couched. Any exceptional claims also remain covered by WP:ECREE. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I have reopened this discussion per my closure at WP:AN here. The original close was There is a consensus in favor of deprecating this source, as most all participants voted options 3 or 4, those who voted 4 strongly advocated their position, and few option 3 voters differentiated their position from those favoring deprecation Mach61 (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

There have been multiple attempts to claim the title of the source makes it supposedly obvious that this cannot possibly be a reliable source. Im sorry, but is it the Arabic or the fact that the word used is "uprising" make it so obvious? EI obviously has a perspective on the Arab-Israeli conflict but when exactly did Wikipedia become about suppressing significant views that people dont like? And when did claiming the usage of an Arabic word make it so that a source was by that virtue alone unreliable? nableezy - 23:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I would suggest that it's the fact that the word is "Intifada", in a context which connects it to events such as the Second Intifada - it would be like naming a source "Electronic Stürmer". BilledMammal (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
And there it is. Thanks for that. Intifada means uprising. The first and second Palestinian uprisings are among the more well known, and they absolutely are not codewords for anti-Semitic propaganda. But thank you for laying that bare for all of us. nableezy - 00:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
For a source to closely associate with mass terror attacks against civilians raises questions at the very least. In addition, I question your comment about anti-semitism having briefly looked at the comments by some of the contributors to EI, both on and off the site.
For example, Susan Abulhawa has spoken in support of the antisemitic Boston Mapping Project, and she has denied that the Second Temple existed on Temple Mount.
On the site, meanwhile, we see what I interpret as her expressing antisemitic tropes when she says Everything — home, heritage, life, resources, hope — has been robbed from us to atone for Germany’s sins. To this day, we languish in refugee camps that are not fit for human beings so that every Jewish man and woman can have dual citizenship, one in their own country and one in mine.
Here, she assigns collective guilt - and not to Israeli's but to Jews generally - and she raises the specter of dual loyalty. Further, it is factually false; for example, those Jews who fled or were expelled from countries like Iraq and Syria lost their citizenship and have only Israeli. BilledMammal (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
to closely associate with mass terror attacks against civilians raises questions at the very least what an absolutely absurd claim. Again, intifada means uprising. The first intifada was largely nonviolent civil disobedience, the second had that and violence on both sides. Your claim that EI closely associate[s] with mass terror attacks against civilians is risible and any closer should discard any vote that relies on such bogus logic entirely. Your BLP violation that a living person is expressing antisemitic tropes is likewise risible, and no she does not raise the specter of dual loyalty, nor is she assigning collective guilt to Jews but rather singular guilt to Israel (in fact a few sentences later she writes "Israel is not Judaism"), she raises the fact that Jews from anywhere in the world are entitled to citizenship in the land that her father was expelled from, at the point of a gun at that. Your BLP violation should be redacted, and if it isnt you should be sanctioned, and your argument should given the weight it deserves. That would be approaching 0. nableezy - 00:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
If EI had been founded prior to the Second Intifada, I would agree with you - but it was founded during the second, which was predominantly characterized by mass terror attacks on civilians - that raises serious questions about the nature of the source.
If I had said she was antisemitic then that would be a BLP violation, but my understanding is that it is not one to raise concerns that an article she wrote expresses antisemitic tropes - for it to be so would effectively prevent us from ever discussing whether a source expresses such tropes.
Further, regardless of whether that article expresses antisemitic tropes it is indisputable that it contains false information. BilledMammal (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
predominantly characterized by mass terror attacks on civilians - false. Doubly so at the time of Febuary 2001 when it was founded as a regularly updated website, having existed less formally from at least December 2000. If I had said she was antisemitic then that would be a BLP violation, but my understanding is that it is not one to raise concerns that an article she wrote expresses antisemitic tropes - false. You wrote, as a statement of fact, that a living person expressed antisemitic tropes. I see no reliable source that backs up that claim, and your tendentious portrayal of the source to claim she does do that does not justify you accusing a living person of a racist act. You are misrepresenting a living person's words to claim she said something racist. You do it with no source backing you up at all, and you do it in an attempt to claim that having a pro-Palestinian name is the equivalent to having a Nazi one. nableezy - 01:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
This is a stretch of the BLP policy. If we require reliable secondary sources to identify a source as being racist, we'd be unable to critically evaluate fringe sources on those grounds as most reliable sources don't spend their time covering publications such as the Electronic Intifada. Arguably, designating an article by someone as "unreliable" is a contentious label applied to a living person by this standard. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
He’s identifying a specific living person for having supposedly made a racist statement when they aren’t even accurately portraying that statement. And yes you need reliable sources to make claims of serious misconduct by living people. nableezy - 04:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
2nd Intifada started Sep 2000, EI was launched in Feb 2001, what mass terror attacks on civilians occurred in between? Levivich (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
That's a good point; I hadn't considered when during the Second Intifada the publication was created - I consider that to address my concerns over the name chosen. BilledMammal (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Guys if an electronic intifada breaks out in the Electronic Intifada thread, arbcom might start passing "resolutions". Levivich (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Billed Mammal. Since the issue is whether or not to deprecate EI in terms of the issue of factuality, you should get your facts right. You correlate EI's foundation with mass terror attacks on civilians, assuming that the civilians here are Israeli.EI arguably was indeed established in the wake of mass 'terrorist' attacks on civilians. So I refer you to the 2nd para of the section 'Post-visit Palestinian riots' (a hopeless pointy header) on our Second Intifada article, the judgment by HRW on who were being shot at from helicopter gunships, the bullet statistics re Israeli 'crowd control' techniques in the first five days, and Jacques Chirac's outraged remonstration to Ehud Barak about the extreme violence employed by Israeli forces against demonstrators, all captured on video, on that inchoate occasion. In short, the word 'civilian' can, you know, occasionally refer not only to Israeli victims but also to Palestinians, the overwhelmingly majority of whom belong to that unarmed category.Nishidani (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources regarding UNRWA October 7 controversy

An editor has been repeatedly adding to UNRWA October 7 controversy (a page regarding aspects of the Israel/Hamas conflict), material about a reporter who covered aspects of the incident and an apparent friend of hers. They are using sources that do not discuss the matter -- indeed, predate this 2023-2024 matter by years -- for information on these two living people. For example, in their latest edit, they have added:

  • Landes launched the IDF's social media presence,[1][2]
  • Keller-Lynn and Landes co-hosted the podcast series Us among the Israelis.[3]

References

  1. ^ Fung, Brian (20 November 2012). "Inside Israel's Social-Media Command Center". The Atlantic. Retrieved 26 February 2024. The IDF's experiment with social media began in 2008 during Operation Cast Lead with 25-year-old Aliza Landes, a member of the IDF's PR team for North American reporters.
  2. ^ "The New Wave in the IDF's Social Media Strategy". i24 News English channel on YouTube. YouTube. 3 May 2019. Retrieved 22 February 2024. at 1'00": Aliza Landes, who founded what is now the IDF social media empire
  3. ^ "UNORTHODOX (Podcast) Israel Ep. 275". Tablet (magazine). 20 May 2021. Retrieved 27 February 2024.

My concern is not so much about the accuracy of the statements as regarding whether such sources can be sufficient to establish WP:DUE for inclusion of BLP material in an article on a contentious topic, given that the articles cited did not and could not be covering the subject of the article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You may want to post to WP:NPOVN (or possibly WP:BLPN), as DUE isn't a RS issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

aerotime.aero

So, this is an interesting case. On the website, it says its name is "aerotime hub" and just recently, this discovery was made, User:AeroTimeHub. The sockpuppet of the linked account was arguing for the addition of the site on Talk:Josh_Cahill#AeroTime_reliability, where it was uncovered that it's a marketing company that does paid advertising and advertorials, rather than actually write news. The account in question has a well deserved oversight ban, and the fact that this will never be a reliable source due to its lack of transparency, I recommend deprecation or blacklisting. DarmaniLink (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's cited in a lot of articles: search results Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm aware, however, it's not a news agency or an otherwise reliable source, simply due to the nature of them being PR/promotional content presented as news. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Is Yahoo's intheknow.com generally reliable?

Yahoo! News is listed as a WP:GREL, so I'm assuming that one of their subsites is likely at least not bad. I see it come up very very often when working on articles with Wikiproject internet culture, and there was a tiny discussion a few months ago but more input would be helpful before I use it as a reliable source. TLAtlak 03:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliability isn't inherited, many companies own both very highly regarded reliable sources and absolute trash.
It's also important to remember the listing relates to news originating from Yahoo, they also aggregate news from other sources and the reliability of any reposted news comes from the original source not Yahoo.
InTheKnow.com specifically looks marginal, it had proper staff and didn't try to hide it's sponsored content. But it's articles were often of low quality, for instance the first link from the old RSN post[101] is made of reposting Instagram, Twitter and TikTok posts. It's probably reliable, but I wouldn't use it for contentious WP:BLP details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Very much so. It seems like it's relatively clear when intheknow.com has its own in-house journalists write a piece, but it's not so clear when articles are sponsored.
I think I'll treat it as "reliable" but won't use it to establish notability. I use it for non-WP:BLP drafts anyway, thanks. TLAtlak 03:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

zamaaero.com

This source is used here to prove that Aegean Airlines had stopped flying at Heraklion International Airport. That might be correct. Unfortunately PikiLuka claims that the source is unreliable, with as comment Zamaaero is not a reliable source because author of that website just uses airline website. He does not have access to the GDS or contacts in the airline. Furthermore, author of Zamaaero has huge history of false information on his website. Because of all that, his website is not a reliable source. ([102]) That is all without any proof. User:Der HON states that "Zamaaero is not listed as a source to avoid, so citing it is okay. Please check there to see if an aviation source is reliable or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Resources#Common_sources_to_avoid". So we have a conflict.

I like to know if zamaaero.com is a reliable source or not. The Banner talk 21:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

That a source is not listed in no way makes it reliable, editors are expected to exercise good judgement in selecting reliable sources.
I can't see anything immediately wrong with Zamaareo, but I'll wait to see what PikiLuka has to say. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
If we consensually block zamaaero, we would consequently have to ban many other aviation news pages too, as they rely on verification via an airlines website, e.g. "aviation.direct", "italiavola", "aerotelegraph" just to name a few. And imho, there is nothing speaking against using airline website (they should know best which routes the operate and which not) to publish online.
A bigger concern of mine is the usage of personal twitter accounts to source an edit. It may be a subjective perception, but I do think that it has increased lately, especially with IP-editors. And as every person can freely express and write ones opinion there, regardless of the truth, I'd argue that it's a major problem. Der HON (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Posts on Twitter would be subject to WP:SPS, basically it's only reliable if it's by an expert who has previously been published by other independent reliable sources.
There's been some previous concerns about similar aviation websites, which is why it would be helpful to hear PikiLuka concerns.
WP:Primary sources can be used, but there could be concern over whether the content should be in the article if the only people bothered to mention it is the airline themselves. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Zamaaero is very unreliable source because of many reasons. Author of the website often posts false information, which are proven to be wrong. For example: https://zamaaero.com/06/03/2023/novosti-iz-regije/prvi-objavljujemo-smanjenja-air-serbia-smanjuje-bukurest-za-4-tjedna-leta/
In this article Author claims that Air Serbia is reducing OTP flights, whereas readers say him that SUTT is not yet loaded. He claims that flights are being reduced just by looking into airline's website, without even contacting the airline or taking a look into GDS.
Couple days later he publishs an article: https://zamaaero.com/13/03/2023/novosti-iz-regije/air-serbia-povecala-letove-samo-15-dana-prije-prvog-leta/
In this article he just confirms that he had published a misinformation in the previous article.
Furthermore, here is another example. In the article: https://zamaaero.com/22/12/2023/analize/ryanair-se-siri-u-zagrebu/ he claims that Memmingen will be flown 3pw during SUTT24 by claiming in the comments that he had contacted the airline.
Just couple weeks later in it shown that this is another misinformation and that FMM is being cancelled for SUTT24.
Next example. In the article: https://zamaaero.com/26/12/2023/novosti-iz-regije/prvi-objavljujemo-smanjenja-ryanair-smanjuje-u-regiji/ he claims that Ryanair is reducing flights in ZAG. Just days after, the much more website ExYuAviation posts a denial from Ryanair which is exactly what is shown on the airline's website: https://www.exyuaviation.com/2023/12/ryanair-denies-regional-winter-cuts.html
Day after the author of Zamaaero claims that Ryanair is lying: https://zamaaero.com/29/12/2023/novosti-iz-regije/ryanair-neosnovano-demantirao-zamaaero/
These are only handful of articles which lead to misinformation of public, and because of them I strongly believe that Zamaaero is not a reliable source. PikiLuka (talk) 10:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Calico (company)

My name is Minna and I work for Calico (company). I have posted at Talk:Calico_(company) regarding three reliable sources issues. (1) Whether an interview on YouTube is an acceptable citation for a criticisms/Reception section (2) a correction regarding not being a subsidiary of Google and (3) whether the cited source actually says Calico is "ineffective".

I was hoping an editor here might be willing to chip-in. I'll have a few other requests too if anyone is willing to stick around on the page for a bit. Veteransway (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User Kline responded on the article Talk page and took care of it. Thanks all! Veteransway (talk) 20:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

What makes a news source notable?

This is more of a question and curiosity around news sources themselves and what makes them notable. (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

If news sources are often typically used as references in news articles, what makes them notable enough to have their own pages on Wikipedia? Do we have any guidelines on this? - how do we determine whether a news source is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia?

To clarify, I'm not asking what makes a news source reliable as a source, but what makes a news source notable for inclusion on Wikipedia specifically? It just seems like a kind of chicken-and-egg thing to me since we rely on news organizations to often establish notability of other subjects, would be curious to hear thoughts & get links to other pages that might talk about this Mr Vili talk 04:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Mr vili, we need independent reliable sources to talk about an organisation to make it notable. In case of news sources, those would be other news sources not owned by the same owners, books by people not employed by the organisation, independent academic papers discussing the reliability, etc. of that source, and so on. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
If Wikipedia considers a news source as "generally reliable" in the terms of the WP:RSP, does that factor into it's notability at all? Mr Vili talk 05:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
It shouldn't, but it's almost always intertwined. When evaluating if a source is notable, we often look at how it's cited in other reliable sources. That is one of the contributing criteria for WP:NMEDIA. TLAtlak 05:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
NMEDIA isn't an actual guideline but the sort of things mentioned there can sway people in AFDs. A newspaper that keeps getting referred to by top-tier newspapers may get an article that just says it exists if nothing more, simply because AFDs will keep them. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I recognize that but I guess it could be considered in the back of the mind. A lot of newspaper articles are stubs, so it makes sense. TLAtlak 06:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a bit of a problem as noted before. A media site that is cited a lot and contains good news stories and is reliable is not so likely to have sources describing them as organisations which are more interesting in that they get involved in producing fake news or other trash. And yes the highly cited boring sites do get AfDs and smaller articles describing their interesting stories rather than the organisation itself. Since this does happen we probably do need to recognize there is this problem with the notability guidelines and do something about it. NadVolum (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I am personally in favor of having as many articles (or information inside a larger article) about the sources we cite as feasible, but we do run into a problem with what to say. The first sentence is easy ("The Mulberry Advance is the weekly newspaper in Mulberry, Kansas") and sometimes we can get a second sentence ("which at one time held the distinction of having the lowest circulation of any newspaper in Kansas"), but then what? We run into WP:WHYN problems – the practical problems of trying to write an encyclopedia article that complies with the principle in NPOV's WP:BESTSOURCES that all articles should be WP:Based upon independent sources. Without sources, it's hard to write a proper encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
That’s an interesting question, but I don’t think that this noticeboard is really the right place for a general discussion on notability of news orgs. Perhaps someone with more experience could suggest a better place? FortunateSons (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Reliability and Notability are very different things. To give an example … Sean Hannity is certainly Notable, but is deemed completely unreliable for sourcing information. Meanwhile, there are thousands of news reporters out there in the trenches who are deemed very reliable, but are not at all Notable.
What makes a news outlet reliable is having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. What makes a news outlet Notable is having other sources discuss them (whether for praise or criticism). Ideally these other sources would be scholars (such as historians), but being discussed by other news outlets is enough. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I think that it is worth mentioning that a news source can be clearly notable and yet utterly unreliable. Examples include Der Stürmer and its modern namesake The Daily Stormer, as well as the amusingly bizarre Weekly World News. I agree that the quality of our coverage of smaller news outlets is lacking but I have found that such articles can usually be improved and expanded with sufficient research. Cullen328 (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Multiple sites from a single company

Hello,

I'm contacting you following an exchange I had in the MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Advercity_websites.

Indeed, on numerous wikis, the French company ADVERCITY has cited itself in hundreds if not thousands of articles as a reliable reference source. In reality, their websites are nothing more than a compilation of various official sources, listed on their site. Where I'm disturbed is that they claim to be an official site, often from a public administration such as a town hall, in order to increase publicity for their sites. I think banning these sites might be a good idea, as it would prevent these unreliable sources from being picked up by other members who are unaware of their actions.

The sites concerned here are :

1: commune-mairie.fr

2: conseil-general.com

3: communes.com

4: acte-deces.fr

5: mairie.net

6: mairie.biz

7: db-city.com

What do you think? Torrora (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I would support this, considering that the French Wikipedia community, which probably has the most insight here, decided to do the same ([103]). Bendegúz Ács (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, this could probably be added to the Global Spam blacklist. TLAtlak 03:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, I've made a request for Global Spam blacklist.
Perhaps you could give your point of view on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist too? Torrora (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Collider

This topic of Collider recently came up in a discussion at The Acolyte (TV series). I have been told it's reliable and I don't see much discussion about it here. It's probably an okay source for interviews and some stories about films, but I wouldn't consider them reliable enough to be the only source for something like a release date for a show that's months away. Their track record is hit or miss when it comes to original reporting, but I could be wrong. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_334#Collider. The site is highly reliable within the television and film/pop culture genre. This includes sourcing them for exclusives/"scoops". WP:VNT would apply in those cases. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for stating your opinion again, I brought it up here because I disagree. I'll leave the content dispute to the article. However, I'm looking for a consensus on this topic. Apparently this hasn't been widely discussed. It's certainly hasn't been discussed enough here to call it a slam dunk reliable source. Nemov (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Spiked (magazine)

I think a discussion should be had regarding the reliability of Spiked (magazine) as a source for citations so we can add it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and inform editors of its reliability or lack thereof, if appropriate. Helper201 (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been discussed a handful of times before, see the RSN archives. It's primarily a publication of opinion and so therefore typically not a useful source for factual claims. It's writers typically have a strong right-wing political bent, so a lot of the time adding their views may be WP:UNDUE weight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of WebMD for medical claims, esp. veterinary.

There have been multiple comments and discussions over here and Wikiproject medicine about the reliability but I don't believe there's been recent consensus on it.

There are multiples sources talking about it's reliability and criticising it [1][2][3]

When it comes to veterinary/animal related articles they are even worse. For example: https://www.webmd.com/pets/dogs/what-to-know-shetland-sheepdogs

The author has no expertise in this subject he is a 'seasoned technology professional based in Florida. He writes on the topics of business, technology, personal finance and digital marketing.' and although it states the article was reviewed I am doubtful it truely was.

In this Shetland article it claims the breed is prone to hip dysplasia - except a study of over a million dogs and 16,000 Shetlands found the breed was not prone to hip dysplasia at all and that the breed was less likely to acquire hip dysplasia than other breeds in the study with an odds ratio of 0.51. [4] Another study of more than a million hip records found the Shetland to have the fifth lowest rate of hip dysplasia out of 60 breeds.[5]

The article itself is hardly professional and it'd never be accepted as a source/citation in academia.

I fail to see why Wikipedia should accept WebMD for medical claims given it's conflict of interest issues due to funding, articles written by non-professionals, incorrect information, and failure to cite references. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.vox.com/2016/4/5/11358268/webmd-accuracy-trustworthy
  2. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9385087/
  3. ^ https://www.thetribune.ca/sci-tech/webmd-is-not-all-its-cracked-up-to-be-08112022/
  4. ^ https://avmajournals.avma.org/configurable/content/journals$002fjavma$002f232$002f12$002fjavma.232.12.1818.xml?t%3Aac=journals%24002fjavma%24002f232%24002f12%24002fjavma.232.12.1818.xml&tab_body=pdf
  5. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325577/

Traumnovelle (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

From WP:MEDRS,

Medical information resources such as WebMD and eMedicine are usually acceptable sources for uncontroversial information; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly.

So, not reliable for anything contested. Bon courage (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I do understand that but I'm trying to get consensus on whether it should be used at all or if it should be unreliable specifically for veterinary context.
The breed articles appear to just have contain made up information or information sourced from unreliable sources. I believe they are making claims based on generic websites and breed clubs without reviewing any literature at all. Not all information can be contested because many of these animal breeds are just so rare/uncommon reliable information for things such as life expectancy simply don't exist. https://www.webmd.com/pets/cats/what-to-know-about-the-snowshoe-cat for example they give a life span of 14-20 years - yet there are no studies on the cat's life expectancy that I can find searching google scholar
That policy has been in place for a while and WebMD has changed a lot since then, the articles on WebMD today are written by non-professionals and editorial oversight seems to be lacking. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I've noticed that you've repeatedly referenced MEDRS in your edit summaries where you deleted claims about the health conditions of dogs. For example, here [104] and here [105]. These are rather large deletions. But the MEDRS standard doesn't automatically apply to animal health. WP:BMI states Generally, editors do not enforce a requirement for especially high-quality sources for non-human medicine. And given this edit summary [106] directed at you by MapReader, maybe you should do less of that. By the way, it looks like much of your own sourcing is made of primary studies that also wouldn't pass the MEDRS standard, even if it applied to dogs. Although some of your deletions are fully justified. Geogene (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this source should be banned. The Vox source cited above said "Overall, the doctors I spoke to said they didn't find anything exceptionally egregious about WebMD." ("The doctors" in this sentence refers to medical professionals writing a competing website, so they are hardly likely to be unreasonably generous to their competitor.)
The complaints about "conflicts of interest" apply with equal force to newspapers and magazines, which have always been happy to run political ads right next to political articles. The Vox complaint linked above could have been re-written as "WebMD uses Google Ads". That source, by the way, is getting some of their money from unregulated advertorial chumboxes served up by Outbrain, which wanted me to know "Top Podiatrist: If You Have Toenail Fungus Try This Tonight (It's Genius!)" and five other things (four of which looked like dubious medical advice; the fifth was about how to block ads). Pot, meet kettle.
On the specific point (i.e., whether the Shetland Sheepdog is unusually prone to hip dysplasia), the goal is to write what most reliable sources say. If most reliable sources say that it's not especially prone to hip dysplasia, then that's what the Wikipedia article should say. If the Wikipedia articles accomplishes this by citing WebMD, then that's fine. If it accomplishes this by citing a different source, then that's fine, too. What we don't want is people to cherry-pick sources that have a minority viewpoint (or outdated information) and present those as if that was the accepted knowledge on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I am leaning to that for claims on humans and animals, it may be usable if other sources support the claim too. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Is NGO Monitor a reliable (but obviously not unbiased) source regarding statements about NGOs and the BLP associated with them?

There are (mostly old) discussion before, but the source came up in the Discussion on this noticeboard about Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor and was characterised as biased (which, in my opinion, is accurate). I would like to incorporate some of them into the article on the org, insofar as that is appropriate. I believe that it can be used, where necessary with an attribution, as it is generally considered reliable enough to be cited by significant parts of MSM, many of the involved people are subject matter experts and they generally cite specific sources and examples. Does anyone disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Per reliable academic sources, I would consider NGO Monitor an unreliable source for statements about NGOs and associated BLPs. Multiple sources published through academic presses and periodicals characterize NGO Monitor's assessments as politically motivated, lacking full editorial independence, not conducting sufficient investigation to substantiate their claims, at times reporting inaccuracies, and having a pattern of singling out groups with perceived political differences rather than focusing on the substance of the alleged problems.
  • Michael Edwards, foreword to NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Innovations, eds. Lisa Jordan and Peter van Tuijl (Routledge, 2006): Examples of such attacks include the NGO Watch project at the American Enterprise Institute, the Rushford Report in Washington DC and the NGO Monitor in Jerusalem, all of which single out liberal or progressive groups for criticism while ignoring the same problems, if that is what they are, among NGOs allied with conservative views. It is no accident that hostility to NGO involvement in global governance forms a key element of neoconservative thinking in the US. Stronger NGO accountability mechanisms won't do away with politically motivated attacks like these, but they would surely help to expose them for what they are. (viii, bolding added)
  • Joel Peters, "Israel", in The European Union and the Arab Spring: Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in the Middle East, ed. Joel Peters (Lexington Books, 2012), 77–92: In recent years a number of right-wing groups in Israel, most notably Im Tirtzu and NGO Monitor, have launched high-profile campaigns with the aim of delegitimizing the activities of Israeli civil society and human rights organizations, especially those that advocate the rights of Arab citizens in Israel and/or address the question of Israeli violations of human rights in the Occupied Territories. (86, bolding added)
  • Yasmeen Abu-Laban and Abigail B. Bakan, "After 9/11: Canada, the Israel/Palestine Conflict, and the Surveillance of Public Discourse", Canadian Journal of Law and Society 27, no. 3 (December 2012): 319–339: NGO Monitor has been characterized by Israeli academics as "right wing", as well as selective in its focus on NGOs; in particular, it ostensibly looks at NGOs concerned with human rights but fails to seriously investigate the activities of NGOs that support illegal activities in the occupied West Bank. (333, bolding added)
    • Abu-Laban and Bakan in particular identify NGO Monitor's propensity for inaccuracy in its descriptions of the basic planks of other NGOs, such as claiming Canadian ecumenical organization KAIROS supports BDS when at the time it explicitly did not encourage boycotting Israeli products: while NGO Monitor claims that KAIROS is a "primary supporter of the anti-Israel divestment movement", KAIROS denies it. In fact, in its "FAQs" online, KAIROS states that its position since first discussed in 2005 is that "KAIROS does not recommend a general boycott of Israeli goods for a number of reasons. (335, bolding added)
  • Sara Kalm, Lisa Strömbom, and Anders Uhlin, "Civil Society Democratising Global Governance? Potentials and Limitations of 'Counter-Democracy'", Global Society 33, no. 4 (2019): 499–519: However, in all its reports, the NGOs that are criticised for being biased and partial have a perspective of promoting Palestinian human rights and/or taking a critical stance toward Israeli Government policies vis-à-vis Palestinians. Thus, the NGO Monitor appears to be promoting pro-Israel views regarding the conflict in a partisan way. Therefore, the organisation cannot be claimed to express universalist views, as it promotes a highly parochial perspective, mainly promoting Israeli interests. [...] Although the organisation claims to be independent—there has been accusations about strong ties between Gerald Steinberg, who is the founder of NGO Monitor, and powerful actors in the Israeli Government. [...] In terms of independence, there seems to be strong evidence pointing to that NGO Monitor might be less independent than it claims and indeed tied to strong political interests and actors. (516–517, bolding added)
  • Ron Dudai, "Entryism, Mimicry and Victimhood Work: The Adoption of Human Rights Discourse by Right-wing Groups in Israel", International Journal of Human Rights 21, no. 7 (2017): 866–888: The goal of such pro-state entryism can be demonstrated most powerfully by NGO Monitor's recent practice of submitting 'shadow reports' to the UN human rights system. Shadow reports are among the most common and important tools of human rights NGOs: while governments submit their formal reports to UN human rights monitoring bodies, obviously seeking to portray a positive image, the practice of shadow reporting allows human rights NGOs to bring to the attention of these bodies independent and less flattering information and interpretation. Israel's human rights NGOs often make use of this tool. NGO Monitor's shadow reports however contain nothing but positive information about Israel, not seeking in any way to question Israel's formal submissions. In effect, they provide shadowing not to the state’s reports but to those of the other NGOs. (871, bolding added)
Assessments such as these from academic sources lead me to conclude that NGO Monitor is not a reliable source for statements about NGOs and associated BLPs. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on the claims regarding unreliability? Their bias is pretty clear, but as far as I can tell, there is no higher frequency of errors than with many newspapers considered reliable.
As this is an activist org (such as the one discussed above), it is obviously not fully independent, but many newspapers aren’t either, and as far as I can tell, there is no sign of a higher degree of bias than shown by many other comparable orgs.
By my cursory reading, there were historically some instances of poor reporting, but not beyond the usual level for comparable org, and not beyond what was shown for EMHRM, which appear to be acceptable with attribution?
Im pretty new, so it’s possible I missed something, but a (high) degree of bias is not a direct hindrance to being an RS, right? FortunateSons (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
While sources having some biases isn't necessarily out of the ordinary, the overall impression I get from academic sources is that NGO Monitor is not only particularly biased (rather than just somewhat biased) but moreover lacks independence from the topic it often reports on (by which I don't just mean it's founded by Israelis, but moreover Kalm, Strömbom, and Uhlin's analysis which finds compelling the connections between NGO Monitor and the institutional Israeli government) and is prone to mischaracterizing organizations. While every editor has a right to make a cursory reading of a source/sourcebase, I'm inclined to base my position on these academic assessments made by trained scholars with a lot more experience in the subject area than me. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
In terms of independence, there seems to be strong evidence pointing to that NGO Monitor might be less independent than it claims and indeed tied to strong political interests and actors. is (as far as I can tell) not entirely untrue, but it refers to Steinberg being a man who, at least for a period of time since its founding, was closely affiliated with the Prime Minister’s Office. Source (from the other end of the political spectrum). This sounds biased (which isn’t in question), but I don’t think it’s more unusual than many other political organisations are. As much as the “revolving door” personally annoys me, it is also the norm, and a venn diagramm of consultants, professors and activists would have more overlap than I like, but it is also a fact of life. Is there a more specific issue that I missed? FortunateSons (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I think these assessments from trained academics, published in peer-reviewed publications, carry more weight than the personal, lay assessments you or I are capable of. I continue to consider NGO Monitor unreliable for statements about NGOs and affiliated BLPs. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Political scientists and journalists argue about the independence of biased sources all the times, which is a normal (and good) part of scientific discourse. It is considered reliable enough that others, including AP and other major publications, cite it, so such an (in this case, very reasonable) argument towards authority does generally hold water in both directions, so I investigated their claim.
In this specific case, Kalm, Strömbom, and Uhlin base their analyses on two sources: „ Although the organisation claims to be independent—there has been accusations about strong ties between Gerald Steinberg, who is the founder of NGO Monitor, and powerful actors in the Israeli Government”. It cites a guardian article, which does not contain any of the relevant keywords and concerns another group, and „Mandy Turner, “Creating a Counterhegemonic Praxis: Jewish-Israeli Activists and the Challenge to Zionism”, Conflict, Security and Development, Vol. 15, No. 5 (2015), pp. 549–574“, which in Footnote 119 links what I have cited above as proof regarding the lack of independence: Yossi Gurvitz and Noam Roatem, ‘What is NGO Monitor’s Connection to the Israeli Government?’. +972 Webzine, 29 April 2014. Available at: http://972mag.com/what-is-ngo-monitors-connection-to-the-israeli-government/90239/[Accessed 23 July 2015]. Based on their writing, it appears to be their political reporting, which I would consider accurate but biased unless proven otherwise (left wing mag, good reporters). However, that does not appear to be significant enough unless we are willing to discount a very long list of orgs, certainly after the time frame where that relationship terminates (otherwise, we would have to depreciate every article written by a current or former politicial consultant, staffer etc.).
If this is the case, I would genuinely appreciate if you re-assessed your view regarding the source; if (which is quite possible) I missed something, I would greatly appreciate if you took the time to correct me. :) FortunateSons (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
By way of aside, Kalm, Strömbom, and Uhlin's citation of the Guardian article doesn't strike me as strangely as it apparently strikes you. It's about another group, yes, but the point of the citation is to place their assessment of NGO Monitor in the context of an existing literature about Israeli institutional actors redefin[ing] what was once seen as tolerable, but albeit bitterly contested, dissent – the reports and critiques of Israel's human rights organisations – as a form of intolerable and existentially threatening delegitimisation. Kalm, Strömbom, and Uhlin's Global Society article is, I would remind, a secondary source which incorporates the three authors' own research and expertise as observers of organizations like NGO Monitor. If they were writing a Wikipedia article, we would expect every claim to be summarizing a verifiable source; but they didn't write a Wikipedia article. They, as academic researchers, have the training to synthesize literature from other writers with their observations to make the kinds of analytical claims that go beyond what a Wikipedia article would say in Wikipedia's own voice.
In any case, my view is based not only any one isolated example from the published literature on NGO Monitor but on the impression I get from the balance of academic sources. I respect your interest in my perspective on this. At the same time, I'd appreciate it if you accept that you haven't convinced me to change my mind. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The guardian citation is fine, I just wanted to clarify that it is not directly related to the question at hand.
I understand that you disagree and trust their assessment, and appreciate the good faith discussion, even if I believe that the researchers view does not diminish the reliability of the source and therefore chose to respectfully disagree with you. Thank you for taking the time. FortunateSons (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@FortunateSons, what exactly would you like to add to the article about the EMHRM based on the NGO Monitor? In general, I would suggest to use less biased sources. If some information is only reported by the NGO Monitor, it might not be WP:DUE.
A bias doesn't mean they are unreliable. The quotes above mostly confirm their partisanship and only one mentions an inaccuracy, so it's hard to understand whether it's a one-off or systematic problem. Alaexis¿question? 12:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree that they are biased. The article linked to questionable reporting about things like organ theft and statements by associated people that one can reasonably argue are antisemitic under modern definitions of antisemitism. I would have added them, probably as „NGO Monitor, (a Jerusalem-based NGO), argued that X was Y.“ You can find examples of the discussed things above in the discussion on EMHRM, if you are interested in writing them yourself :)FortunateSons (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I am happy to discuss the DUE weight of statements later, but as long as this is ongoing, I am not really interested in pre-writing and sourcing a statement that I might not even be able to include on the talk page. FortunateSons (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
It certainly has come up before. If one puts "NGO Monitor" into the search box at the top of this page for the archives you'll find a whole load of them. I've only gone through a few but they were very dismissive overall. One comment I saw said calling it reliable is like saying Electronic Intifada was reliable - and that has been deprecated. Perhaps someone else can go through the lot and get an overall opinion about reliabiliy. I definitely think its very biased views mean its opinions should be assigned little or no weight. NadVolum (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, their bias is clear in my opinion, and pretty undisputed as far as I can tell; they are right-wing and Zionist (in the literal sense of the word). However, considering the debate we just had on EMHRM, I would think that they should be in the same category; they both have bias and some questionable statements, but NGO Monitor is cited by RS and should therefore be considered equal or better (but obviously attribution is still required). FortunateSons (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Putting a respectable NGO and NGO monitor in the same basket? Don't think so. Monitor is a trash operation spewing out endless Israeli propaganda, one merely has to look at the complete crap they wrote in respect of 6 NGOs declared illegal by Israel and for which Israel was widely condemned. Extreme bias makes the source unusable. I would accept the equally biased views of its founder as a source because they theoretically qualify as an expert and at least then we have a name attached to an opinion, can form a judgement of it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
With all due respect, that isn’t really an objective argument. Bias is not really an argument if it doesn’t interfere with the facts, and they are right wing, but not fringe beyond what many left wing sources are. If you agree that the creator is a subject matter expert and that they are regularly quoted by RS, I don’t think that one can really disagree with being biased but reliable unless you can show a pattern of poor reporting beyond bias. FortunateSons (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I just did, read the linked article. And it is not just bias, it is extreme bias (which is a reason to question reliability, if not deprecate). I don't understand the last sentence. To reiterate I accept the creator as an SPS and afaics, NGO monitor is a good candidate for deprecation, since we have had many discussions, I think converting this one into a formal RFC might be the way to go here. Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
And it is not just bias, it is extreme bias (which is a reason to question reliability, if not deprecate).
With all due respect to you, I seem to recall you coming to a different conclusion regarding EI and Mondoweiss despite their bias being extreme as well. As someone who’s been in favor of GUNREL/deprecating biased sources on either side of the conflict, the least I can ask for is logical consistency. The Kip 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a key difference. NGO Monitor's output is written by NGO Monitor. Mondoweiss' output is written by the authors of its articles, some of whom are respected experts. I'm not in favor of citing Mondoweiss editorials (for facts, especially), but the articles it publishes should be judged on the expertise of their authors. So actually I am completely consistent. Zerotalk 01:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Which is a different issue entirely than the predictability of output that you cited below. Yes, Mondoweiss primarily publishes op-eds from individual authors; however, just like NGOM’s content, those op-eds have an extremely predictable bias to them.
I’m simply tired of users’ opinions/votes on sources developing entirely from what side of the conflict said source backs, and this applies to sources and users on either side. If a source overly favors one side of the conflict it’s probably not reliable, this shouldn’t be hard. When a user supports downgrading one source because of bias but opposes doing so for a biased source in the opposite side, I have the right to question if general bias (versus the user’s opinion) is the real concern.
And before I myself am inevitably accused of favoring one side, you can see that I’ve voted for GUNREL below after voting for GUNREL/deprecate on the Palestinian-biased EI/The Cradle/Mondoweiss while advising against using the Israeli-biased i24 and JNS as reliable sources in two non-RfC discussions. Again, it’s not hard. The Kip 16:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I see no reason to use them. They are more akin to one of those think tanks employed to say global warming isn't happening and it is too late to do anythng about it and it is good for agriculture and it is a Chinese plot. NadVolum (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
That isn’t really true. You can disagree with their claims, but the statements are generally fact-based FortunateSons (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Actually it's a good description. They can only be called fact-based if the facts always point in exactly the same direction. A source with entirely predictable output is worthless. Zerotalk 14:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
With all due respect, I seem to recall you coming to a different conclusion regarding Mondoweiss despite their outcomes being rather predictable as well. The Kip 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The tobacco industry and suchlike tried to avoid outright falsehooda too. Have a look at NGO Monitor on Amnesty International [107], Medicis Sans Frontieres [108], the ICJ [109]. Does factual really cover them? NadVolum (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Could you clarify which of the statements is false? They provide links their sources, and while they obviously cover things in a way that is in line with their bias, I can’t find anything where they have claimed something to be true which isn’t in the 3 links you provided. Their interpretation is obviously their own and biased (which is the reason that policy requires that such claims be attributed), but I can’t find anything that goes beyond biased into falsehoods. If they have a pattern of blatant misinformation like most depreciated sources do, it should be easy to find, right? FortunateSons (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
So do you think "Amnesty disproportionately singles out Israel for condemnation, focusing solely on the conflict with the Palestinians, misrepresenting the complexity of the conflict, and ignoring more severe human rights violations in the region." is a reasonable statement like any investigative journalist might make? Or its bias is just something that can be ignored? Or how about "In practice, however, MSF consistently abuses its status as a humanitarian organization to launch venomous anti-Israel political campaigns." or "ICJ is active in lobbying the United Nations promoting false, distorted, and unverifiable allegations against Israel."? NadVolum (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I think it’s complicated, but I certainly disapprove of the way it is being said.
stricken for being off topic
In this case, I believe the answer for this issue to be fully covered by the policies of Wikipedia: we attribute claims to biased sources, don’t use our own voice in controversial cases, and make a reasonable effort to verify information when it appears to be fishy.
After all, we (as in all Editors) figured out religious disputes, military conflicts, and complex ethical debate. I think we can trust each other to differentiate between posturing and a specific claim being made about an NGO, don’t you? FortunateSons (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
It's not complicated; it's complete crap and a joke source. "ICJ is active in lobbying the United Nations promoting false, distorted, and unverifiable allegations against Israel." - just laughable. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding „unverifiable allegations“: that may be my personal frustration, but all sides are currently doing that this and I find it highly annoying when doing research. The people (even scientists and journalists) stating assumptions as facts when talking about topics in the fog of war (unless someone secretly works for an intelligence agency with a very high clearance, in which case, go right ahead) are the bane of my existence. FortunateSons (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
NGO Monitor is cited by RS. Is it? I'm looking now and (excluding unreliable sources such as Electronic Intifada and Israel Hayom) this is what I see:
Jewish News Syndicate[114][115][116]
  • Ha'aretz noting one of its employees was banned from editing Wikipedia in 2013[117]
  • a 2014 controversy during which the Washington Post reported that AP had not cited in for several years,[118] after a former AP reporter claimed there was a ban on using it there[119] (but note David Bernstein of Volokh Conspiracy did describe them as a usable source in WaPo in response.[120]
  • A 2016 op ed in Al-Jazeera attacking them for bias and misrepresentation[121]
  • +972 ridiculing it[122][123]
  • rival op eds in a Canadian Jewish outlet[124]
  • a 2018 news article in EUObserver that starts "Former Israeli diplomats have accused NGO Monitor, a right-wing pressure group, of sowing misinformation that undermined EU efforts on conflict resolution."
  • a 2021 op ed in the NYT that describes "a campaign, spearheaded by the Israeli government (with support from groups like NGO Monitor and UK Lawyers for Israel, which pursue these Palestinian groups in court and have been accused by advocacy groups of disseminating disinformation), targeting civil society organizations that monitor and resist Israeli human rights violations, including the continuing expansion of illegal settlements."[125]
In conclusion, two right-wing RSs use them; lots of others see them as unreliable. I'd say we could mention their opinion when secondary usage in e.g. Jerusalem Post shows it's noteworthy; otherwise avoid. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
It's a biased source that needs to be used with care, if at all, as its use could easily be WP:UNDUE due to its partisan nature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, thank you FortunateSons (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
  • As per my prior opinions re: EI, the Cradle, JNS, etc, I’d personally avoid using any outright biased sources with regards to anything in the I-P CTOP are regardless of “reliability,” and in that case that includes NGO Monitor. If it absolutely needs to be used, don’t do so without attribution. The Kip 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
    I would personally only use it for background on individuals and orgs with controversial views, and not generally use them for notability as such and breaking news.
    However, they are ‚useful‘ (if you get over the language) when it comes to statements made and reports published, as even very questionable statements and reports are often ignored due to the sheer quantity of content in the digital age. FortunateSons (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
    I think "background on individuals with controversial views" would be the worst possible use, as BLP material requires extra high quality sourcing and this is the opposite of that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
    That makes sense. Insofar as the source is reliable (which is the question at hand), I would argue that verifiable claims (such as public statements or statements made online) would be acceptable, right? FortunateSons (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • It gets tricky, though, doesn't it? Plenty of clearly high-quality sources on I-P issues (including some of the most commonly cited ones, like Al-Jazeera and The Jerusalem Post) have what could reasonably be described as outright biases. It's not uncommon for sources closest to the conflict and which, therefore, produce some of the best coverage, to also have outright biases. Ultimately what matters is their reliability - whether that bias is sufficient to harm their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. To me, the most alarming thing here is the fact that they claim more independence than they actually have - if true, that is a fundamental falsehood that makes them hard to use as a source. For outrageously slanted sources there are also WP:DUE issues - when a source's coverage is too slanted, then what it covers or doesn't cover has less significance, making it likely to be undue; and even when they cover factual things, their opinion about what is important carries little weight for our content decisions. "Source that always without question advocates X is advocating X in this particular context as well" is just not something that is generally going to be due without a secondary source - we wouldn't end every article with Carthago delenda est just because we have a cite to Cato the Elder connecting it to the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your response! Yeah, it’s pretty complicated. There was a pretty long discussion above, that I believe can be summarised as „we are not sure“ when it comes to questions of independence. I believe to have found the original source by following the citations and consider it mostly harmless, but my counterpart in the discussion made excellent points and provided good sourcing, so I think it’s still up in the air.
    Regarding WP:DUE, I agree that it is pretty complicated and will (as I/P does) lead to long discussions on talk pages. However, some of the most „outstanding“ claims, such as (in the thread on EMHRM) a chairman of an NGO allegedly downplaying sexual assaults is probably DUE at least a sentence.
    Would you consider them reliable (but biased, as you said) unless there is convincing evidence that they are not independent? FortunateSons (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The default for sources is that they're unknown, leaning towards unreliable. A lot of people above have fixated on the question of whether their bias renders them unreliable, which misses the more basic question - what reasons do we have to think that they are reliable? I mentioned Al-Jazeera and The Jerusalem Post, say; while they're biased, there's massive amounts of high-quality WP:USEBYOTHERS and secondary coverage indicating that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Where's the corresponding reputation here? I feel that this is a common problem when discussing sources that are known for their bias and nothing else - people get derailed into the fact that WP:BIASED isn't automatically disqualifying and miss the fact that it allows sources that otherwise have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to be used despite their bias. If the only thing the source is known for is its bias, and nobody has written anything positive about it at all, then it's unreliable because it lacks the reputation that RS requires. (And beyond that the WP:DUE issue remains, so I probably would avoid citing it in any place where it's the only source, especially for anything WP:EXCEPTIONAL - which is probably the only situations people are likely to want to cite it anyway.) So if you want to argue it is reliable, I would search for at least some positive coverage or WP:USEBYOTHERS to counterbalance the obviously-negative coverage above; even if the sources above don't outright say it's unreliable (and therefore wouldn't be disqualifying if it clearly had a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy otherwise), a source where the only available coverage is negative is not a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
If I understood you correctly, you are looking for cases where a reliable sources cited them or their spokespeople? With a quick search, I have found:
AP (1) AP (2) AP (3), also NYT (1) NYT (2), and BBC (1) BBC (2) and also others [1] [2]. Is that enough, or should I look for more? FortunateSons (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
From this list, the Reuters piece uses it as a source for facts (giving its claims similar status to the NGOs it's attacking such as B'Tselem).[126] The BBC and AP examples, however, are all of it (or its spokespeople) being used as a source of opinion, suggesting its opinion is occasionally noteworthy, but not that it is reliable for facts. I can't see the WaPo and NYT examples behind the paywalls, but can I ask what they are using it for, facts or opinion? My take-home is that we might want to include its opinion via RSs, but that we don't have much reason to use it as a reliable source for facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time. The links below are without paywall, and are IMO.:
NYT (1) mostly opinion related to the value of another NGOs actions
NYT (2) is Kind of both, but also a statement regarding causality, so I would say its partial
WaPo ascribing motives to others, 70% opinion, 30% statement of fact.
(Assessments are my own, please feel free to verify.) What do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
It's an overtly biased pressure group in favour of Israel. I don't see evidence they're not independent, but they're still pretty clearly on one side of the conflict. They're not a news organization and like Amnesty International, their claims should be covered by other sources to assess if they have WP:DUE weight. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Have we got an example of page of NGO Monitor we might possibly use as a citation on Wikipedia? NadVolum (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I would absolutely avoid NGO Monitor. It's not just biased and partisan; it's an attack dog dishonestly posing as a neutral monitor. It regularly distorts material it quotes. I don't think it's the case (as suggested above) that it's used as a source by mainstream sources - it might be used as a source by right-wing tabloidy media such as Fox News or the Daily Mail, but I don't recall it being seen as a source of facts by serious outlets. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I made a short list of citations by RS above FortunateSons (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh sorry I missed that. I'll look now. I just did a systematic search of Google News and found two RSs using it and several others criticising it, pasted above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Could you check whether to include the ones I found as well? FortunateSons (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
My opinion of NGO monitor is strongly influenced by the way that the organization has manipulated Wikipedia using paid staffers. In particular one staffer who had no qualms about making COI claims against a target of Gerald Steinberg [127] while failing to disclose his own, much worse, COI. [128]. And then, to make it worse, lying about it. He utilized an elaborate strategy to pad WP articles with NGO monitor talking points.(clearly described by Nomoskedasticity in “additional comments” [129]). It was disgusting. I can’t think why anyone would consider an organization who would stoop this kind of underhand behaviour a reliable source. “A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”? No, we have direct evidence of exactly the opposite. Slp1 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Euro-Med HRM has done similar; while problematic, and we should be taking hard looks at all coverage of these sources, I don’t think misbehaviour on Wikipedia is sufficient to find the source unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
No, they have not done similar, and that is such a bogus assertion I don’t know how you made it so casually. nableezy - 09:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Slp1. An organization or an individual employing deception to engineer the content of an encyclopedia is a useful and important indicator of unreliability. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
They created their own article, and then after it was deleted at AfD repeatedly recreated it until it finally stuck. They've heavily edited that article, as well as articles on their projects and key members, and they place links to media coverage of their reports throughout the encyclopedia - and all this without disclosing their COI. It sounds similar to me. BilledMammal (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

<- One interesting thing about NGO Monitor (that is not the same as Euro-Med HRM I assume) is the unusual extent to which the article and talk page attract dishonest editors who employ deception. Very nearly a quarter of all edits to the article and talk page are by people who were subsequently blocked/banned for abuse of multiple accounts, ban evasion, COI and so on. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the reliability of NGO Monitor?

GENERALLY UNRELIABLE
This RFC has established a consensus among editors that NGO Monitor is generally unreliable. The argument for additional considerations, acknowledged NGO has right-wing bias but is cited by reliable sources. There was also support for deprecating noting the attempts by NGO to influence Wikipedia articles. There is generally agreement that NGO is unreliable and should not be used for WP:BLP articles, however there wasn't quite enough support to deprecate. Thanks - Nemov (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

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.


The consensus is that an infobox should be included in this article. The main opposing argument was that an infobox would be redundant, but the general consensus here is that it would be desirable to present basic key information in an infobox. Dantus21 (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC) }}

What is the reliability of NGO Monitor?

RFCbefore is above, there have been several discussions in the past.Selfstudier (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey (NGO Monitor)

Option 3 but only because we shouldn't deprecate right off the bat. It is clear from the above discussion that this source is not at all reliable for facts. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Option 3 per my contribution to the discussion above, describing it as an attack dog dishonestly posing as a neutral monitor and noting that it its opinions are occasionally quoted by RSs meaning its views might sometimes be noteworthy, that the Jerusalem Post and some other outlets have used it as a source for facts, but that other sources explicitly call it unreliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 per my contributions above. Made by a subject-matter expert and cited by RS such as NYT, AP, Reuters etc., but also has a right-wing bias and shouldn’t be used without attribution. For BLP, claims regarding facts should not be used unless a source/link is explicitly provided. FortunateSons (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 NGO Monitor is a partisan activist organisation that masquerades itself as a neutral monitor. It's only usable for their own opinions, but even then it would very likely be WP:UNDUE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4 This is a propaganda outlet and nothing more. I can't see that it is to be used a source for anything. --Te og kaker (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4 "ICJ is active in lobbying the United Nations promoting false, distorted, and unverifiable allegations against Israel."? I don't see how one could use any page in it for a citation. NadVolum (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per FortunateSons. JM (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3, and I only don't !vote for 4 because the trend of deprecation has been to the detriment of the project. This organization began as a one-man outfit for publishing lies and evolved into a multi-person outfit for publishing lies. Nothing positive can be said about it. Zerotalk 08:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
You dwfinitely make a point okay. I would not have deprecated the Daily Mail or the Sun, I think I'll stick with deprecation here though. NadVolum (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per my votes on EI, Mondoweiss, etc. GUNREL’ing unreliable sources on a CTOP shouldn’t be difficult, but certain groups of users seem only interested in doing so to sources that disagree with their perspective. The Kip 16:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 FortunateSons' statement is reasonable. use with attribution, caution in biographical articles. ValarianB (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3. Per my contribution in the discussion above, the balance of of reliable academic sources independent of NGO Monitor indicate that the way in which it's partisan and partial results in distorted assessments of the NGOs it purports to monitor and but has led to inaccuracies. I was also very persuaded by user Aquillion's comment in the above discussion about WP:USEBYOTHERS. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3, based on the evidence presented in the discussion above. It's not merely biased, like an editorial publication can be. Its primary purpose is to attack other people and groups, from a frankly extreme PoV. That makes it unusable from a WP:BLP standpoint. The allegations of ties to political actors (P-Makoto's list of academic sources) and allegations of spreading misinformation (BobFromBrockley's review of media outlets) make it worse. Only voting "3" out of respect for the norm of avoiding deprecation as the first step. DFlhb (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - the definition of a propaganda outlet, including having had paid employees editing Wikipedia entries to insert NGO-Monitor press releases. When their views are noted by some other reliable outlet then perhaps there is discussion on including them in our articles, but as a source itself? It does not have any noted experts in any field publishing on their webpage, so the comparisons to other sources that do publish such experts is lacking, this is purely a propaganda outlet with no redeeming qualities to use as a source in an encyclopedia. nableezy - 22:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, could you explain why the founder is not considered an expert? FortunateSons (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
    Oh, and the Wiki Page includes a list of people, I can’t find a current list but I think some of them can be considered legal experts etc. Can you find a current link? FortunateSons (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per P-Makoto and DFlhb. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4. While I am also reluctant to go straight to deprecating a source in most cases, Slp1's comment above proving that NGO Monitor has attempted to manipulate Wikipedia should be enough to get them put on the spam blacklist. I also see ample evidence that they are not only unreliable for facts but actually specifically generate misinformation, which IMO is the standard for deprecation. Loki (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4 NGO Monitor is a propaganda mill that publishes blatant falsehoods, and should never be used as a source. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4. I might have gone for just unreliable, but the attempt to manipulate coverage on Wikipedia is the sort of thing deprecation exists for. Additionally, there are allegations that they were banned from even being quoted in the Associated Press; while the AP denied that there was a formal ban, it seems likely that they were specifically noted as a poor-quality source. --Aquillion (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2'. Like FortunateSons says, it is biased but it is also curated by subject matter experts and is cited by RS. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Option 3 or Option 4 I would consider it unreliable for facts. It is meticulously demonstrated by other editors that this organization does not have a good reputation factual accuracy. Cornsimpel (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Does anyone have examples of it being unreliable? So far in this discussion, I’m just seeing evidence of bias, which isn’t sufficient to find the source unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    My post in the above thread cites Michael Edwards (2006) for NGO Monitor's unreliability by omission, i. e. its selective reporting creating a distorted impression of what it does report. I also cite Abu-Laban and Bakan (2012) on NGO Monitor straightforwardly reporting inaccurate information about organizations. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    Omission is an issue of bias, not reliability. As for Abu-Laban and Bakan; that reads like it could be a difference of opinion; they say the organisation doesn’t support a "general boycott", emphasis mine, which implies that they do support some form of boycott making it not unreasonable to classify them as within the BDS movement.
    Do you have examples of clear falsehoods; where you can say "they said this, and here is evidence that they lied"? BilledMammal (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    Why do you ask? Have you not looked into this yourself?
    From the Wikipedia page NGO Monitor there is a report [130] used as a reference which has a section titled "Baseless claims and factual inaccuracies".
    - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    Typically, editors who are arguing against a source are expected to present evidence for their position.
    Who is the Policy Working Group? I've tried to look into them, but I'm not seeing much information - what I am looking for is the sort of evidence I presented in the Mondoweiss discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    Perhaps you can explain what is truthful about "ICJ is active in lobbying the United Nations promoting false, distorted, and unverifiable allegations against Israel"? The whole website is not only biased like that but deceptive as can be seen on its main page. How is one supposed to extract any information of value from a site like that or have any confidence in its reliability? I'd as soon support the inclusion of QAnon as a reliable source. At least HonestReporting which is another organization like that actually does some journalistic work and tries to couch what it says to stay on the side of factualism. NadVolum (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    I don’t know anything about the International Commission of Jurists; you’ll have to tell me what is and isn’t truthful about that claim. BilledMammal (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    International Commission of Jurists, are you asserting that would be a reasonable description of them? Or that the 'evidence' at NGO Monitor supports that at all? An organization doesn't have to do much for a tirade like that. Have a look at [131] for how many anti-Israel or demonizing Israel NGO's there are even in Israel itself according to it. NadVolum (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    Look at the crap ("systematically promote demonization of Israel, BDS, and antisemitism") they write about Amnesty (a green RS), for example. Pure propaganda outfit, nothing more. Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    Not to mention the crap they wrote about 6 NGOs. "After the ban, some speculated that it was based on information provided by NGO Monitor, which The Intercept describes as "a hyperpartisan Zionist group".Mackey, Robert (October 23, 2021). "Palestinian Rights Groups That Document Israeli Abuses Labeled "Terrorists" by Israel". The Intercept. Retrieved 28 April 2022. All subsequently debunked, evidence free rubbish. Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    They don't discriminate! Rabbis for Human Rights for instance is associated with an organization that demonizes Israel. NadVolum (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    Perhaps you can cite a non-NGO Monitor independent source which agrees with that claim against Rabbis for Human Rights. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    Could you specify a few statements of fact that you consider inaccurate? NGO Monitor definitely has their niche, but they usually cite specific information FortunateSons (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    I just demand a third party source which supports the claim that "Rabbis for Human Rights is associated with an organization that demonizes Israel". Simply discrediting a Jewish group, especially one which is friendly with Palestinians, doesn't mean NGO Monitor is "not discriminatory", thus "not unreliable". (Sorry for the double negative, but required for clarity.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry, by non-discriminatory I meant they didn't just write things against Palestinians, they also write them about Israeli's that don't agree with what the Israeli government does. Their evidence for that is that they are partners with [132] to give the NGO link, thast's an organisation the World Council of Churches set up. And here [133] NGO Monitor's link about the World Council of Churches which is worth reading. Seemingly criticizing Christian Zionism is antisemitic. Roll on End Times and the Apocalypse! NadVolum (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    Oops I didn't read the irony and sarcasm. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 17:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    That’s a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact. What they did list were specific demands of that organisation, which (excluding dead or redirecting links) can still be found. While you (and honestly, often I) can disagree with that interpretation, a different evaluation of facts is bias, not unreliability. FortunateSons (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    That depends if their opinions are fringe or retaliatory. I grew weary of the weaponization of antisemitism against valid criticisms. If they are merely the mouthpiece of the Israeli government or ultra right parties, what is even the point of citing them in the first place? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 17:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    NGO Monitor is right wing, but not fringe within the right-wing Jewish community (anecdotal, but still). They are not government propaganda or ultra right wing, but are generally aligned with the current government. That being said, we do use sources that are „mouthpieces of governments“, as long as they are reliable. FortunateSons (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Option 2. Per u:FortunateSons's arguments on the usage of NGO Monitor by reliable sources. Alaexis¿question? 08:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4: known for its disinformation. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 recognized experts cited by reliable sources as noted by others above. ValarianB (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC) Striking duplicate !vote statement, ValarianB already expressed an opinion in this discussion on 16:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC) signed, Rosguill talk 18:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (NGO Monitor)

The arguments for deprecation based on selective reporting should be ignored. No outlet can report on everything happening everywhere, there is always some selection. NGO Monitor's selection is definitely biased, but so are many other organisations. Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor doesn't report on human rights violations against Israelis, does it mean they are also automatically unreliable? Alaexis¿question? 08:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't actually read the full stories by NYT or Washington Post due to paywall, but both outlets attribute this org as pro-Israel in virtually all of their articles, at least as far as I can tell in my Google search results. This is not the case with reputed NGOs like Human Rights Watch. The real question is: What are the immediate demands of citing NGO Monitor on Wikipedia, even with attribution? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

That would be bias, not accuracy, just saying. There were some issues with use, particularly about the organisation above. FortunateSons (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Some sources on NGO Monitor:

  • Bier, J. (2017). Mapping Israel, Mapping Palestine: How Occupied Landscapes Shape Scientific Knowledge. Inside Technology. MIT Press. p. 239. ISBN 978-0-262-33996-4. Retrieved March 4, 2024. The moment that NGO Monitor strayed from such (allegedly impartial) empirical criticisms was precisely when it was convicted of breaking Israeli libel laws. In 2007, after spuriously claiming that ARIJ and other groups "emphasize external issues including the justification of violence," ARIJ and several partner NGOs sued NGO Monitor for libel in Israeli courts, and won. As a result, Professor Gerald Steinberg, the executive director of NGO Monitor, was forced to issue an apology (Silverstein 2010).
  • Rettman, Andrew (September 28, 2018). "Former diplomats raise alarm on Israeli lobby group". EUobserver. Retrieved March 4, 2024. Former Israeli diplomats have accused NGO Monitor, a right-wing pressure group, of sowing misinformation that undermined EU efforts on conflict resolution.

    The Jerusalem-based group, which also has a one-person office in the EU capital, Brussels, "disseminates misleading and tendentious information, which it presents as factual in-depth research", Ilan Baruch, Israel's former ambassador to South Africa, said in a report by the Policy Working Group (PWG), published on Thursday (27 September).

  • "'Unfounded allegations': EU resumes funding of Palestinian NGOs". Al Jazeera. June 30, 2022. Retrieved March 4, 2024. NGOs based in Palestine or working for Palestinian rights have long been the targets of smear, defamation, and defunding campaigns by Israeli and international lobby groups such as NGO Monitor and UK Lawyers for Israel, in cooperation with the Israeli government, with which they have close ties.

So that is disinformation, defamation and smears from this "source" according to reliable sources. nableezy - 14:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429&oldid=1212595953"