Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453

Additional notes:

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

Start a new discussion

RFC on The South African

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

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• • The reason why I am opening this RFC is that I have a concern about The South African hosting plagiarised Wikipedia content in their news articles. The one that concerned me was this article that appeared to have directly copied from our Des van Jaarsveldt article. I emailed the paper informing them of this but got no reply. When I raised the discussion at RSN, opinions seemed to believe there was reason to doubt the reliability of The South African so this is why I am formally opening the RFC and asking the community given it has similar characteristics to the issues from WP:ROYALCENTRAL that led to it's subsequent depreciation. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

    Might be worth looking at the author's others writings too.. don't have time to rn Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

    • @Bluethricecreamman: Well I have looked into this particular author and it seems he has done it again in a later article about Pravin Gordhan. The article also appears to copy from the Wikipedia article, specifically the lede. I don't know if that may change people's opinion as to whether its just one author or the whole source needs a look at. Pinging @ActivelyDisinterested: and @North8000: so they can see too. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Survey (The South African)

• Option 2 They appear to be a standard news organisation, although the issues highlighted raise concerns about their quality. I can't find any other issues being raised, although search for information on them is made difficult due to their name. I don't think one issue is enough to declare them generally unreliable or deprecate them, but it does show the source should be shown more scrutiny if it's used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 (invited by the bot) Except in extreme cases, I'm against generalization (=overgeneralization) of any source. Which means "other considerations apply" is what nearly all should be. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 Its news stories attributed to journalists seem largely reliable, or at least no worse than many other outlets we trust. However, we need to be aware of the possibility of wiki-mirroring in these articles. There also appears to be incipient AI use which may require further discussion if more examples become evident.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 I think having sat on the fence, I should cast my !vote. Had it been an isolated incident, I would have agreed with the above for option 2. However, based upon the evidence that I found that it has happened again (even after I informed them of the plagiarism), that suggests that it would be better to consider it unreliable since they have continued to copy Wikipedia. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 Seems like we don't have enough info beyond the clear plagiarism cases identified. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but we also should be willing to revisit/do another RFC if there is more info released confirming issues. Bluethricecreamman (talk)

Discussion (The South African)

• There are multiple publications that have very similar names, so it's not easy to search for information on the source. Also there appears to be two very different periods in its history - from 2003–2015 it was a freesheet distributed in London, but since 2015 it has been an online news source focused on the South African market. The BBC[1] and Stanford Libraries[2] both have media guides about South African news media, neither of which mention the The South African. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  I've left a notification of the RFC on the Project South Africa talk page[3]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

RFC Jewish Chronicle

The reliability of the Jewish Chronicle is:

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

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

Note (Jewish Chronicle)

Existing RSP entry is green with the following commentary:

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

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

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

Well, there are clear wording differences between WP:GUNREL and WP:DEPREC, beyond the availability of technical means for the latter. Andreas JN466 12:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm just summarising Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable. WP:DEPREC itself is a short summary of WP:DEPRECATE, but this is better discuss in the discussion section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Jewish Chronicle)

• Option 2 in general, Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA area. The recent scandal gives rise to significant doubts over editorial control and practices which taken together with the lack of transparency over ownership and recent checkered history suggests we should not consider this source reliable without inline attribution at a minimum and unreliable for matters relating to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.Selfstudier (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  You didn't seem concerned about funding in the case of Al Jazeera; you wrote I am not persuaded that any bias produced as a result of Qatari funding. Why the different approach here? In this case there could be donors or lenders we don't know about (which isn't uncommon for news orgs), but what could be worse than being owned by an absolute monarchy? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please take your irrelevancies elsewhere, the discussion section maybe. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's relevant because holding Jewish publications to a different standard would bias the topic area. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Al Jazeera is somewhat of a special case, as it has complete editorial independence despite being state-funded (a setup similar to the BBC). CVDX (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Almost all news orgs claim editorial independence, including RT for example. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Repeats comment about irrelevancies. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 for Muslims, the British left and Israel/Palestine since 2016, option 3 for its entire output since 2020. The JC has had a long history of false reporting on Muslims, the British Left and Israel/Palestine (a complex of topics which frequently intersect). In the post 2010 period the JC frequently libelled individuals and published false information on these topics. Individuals were forced to resort to complaints to IPSO in order to get corrections published. Professor of Journalism Brian Cathcart writes the publication of falsehoods has been a characteristic of the paper’s journalism for years. The paper broke IPSO's code 41 times between 2018 and 2023, an astounding number for a small weekly paper, and paid out in at least four libel cases. All were against Muslims or people on the British left.

IPSO lamented the paper's lack of cooperation with complaints in very strong terms The Committee expressed significant concerns about the newspaper’s handling of this complaint. The newspaper had failed, on a number of occasions, to answer questions put to it by IPSO and it was regrettable the newspaper’s responses had been delayed. The Committee considered that the publication’s conduct during IPSO’s investigation was unacceptable. Given the difficulty of obtaining corrections from the paper in cases where individuals are named, it is likely a large amount of false information has also been published where nobody is named, so the possibility of libel actions is eliminated, and the chance of IPSO cases is significantly reduced.

The 2020 change of ownership, meaning nobody actually knows who owns the paper, combined with the false stories on Gaza, suggest we should not use the paper in any capacity until the question of ownership is clarified.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Just in addition to this, I feel, having read others' comments, a date of 2010 for the beginning of the qualification on reliability regarding political topics may also be valid, given that marked the period where Stephen Pollard took over. I would certainly consider extending it back that far in terms of BLP. However, the real collapse in standards occurred from 2015.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 in general, Option 3/4 for WP:A/I/PIA area (Option 4 for WP:A/I/PIA coverage from 2024 going forward, given this year's string of fabrications and widespread concerns about journalistic integrity voiced in both the Israeli and international press). --Andreas JN466 11:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  Explanation of Option 2 "additional considerations", as requested below:

  The current RSP entry says, There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics.

  Per Option 2, in-text attribution should in my view not just be recommended but required for any topics that are related to "the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians" but do not fall under WP:A/I/PIA. This should also apply more generally to assertions and allegations of antisemitism that do not fall under WP:A/I/PIA. Andreas JN466 07:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I also support comments by others that journalistic standards at the Jewish Chronicle appear to have dropped lower and lower over the past 20 years, with step changes in 2008, 2015 and after the change in ownership in 2020. Andreas JN466 11:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4: major scandal for a prominent newspaper which should be immediately deprecated for the following reasons:

1-Unknown owners who are likely right-wing ideologues;

2-Publication of fabricated stories supporting Israeli premier Netanyahu's narratives;

3-Allowance of an unknown freelance journalist who came "out of nowhere" to write these fabricated stories under a pseudonym and with a falsified resume

4-The fired freelance journalist then making death threats to an Israeli reporter due to the revealing of their identity

5-The resignation of the newspaper's most prominent columnists who have also stated that the JC's editorial line had become "sensationalist" and "unbalanced". Makeandtoss (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

These issues all relate to the period from 2020 to now. If it’s technically possible to deprecate for a specific timeframe only, is it right to assume you would argue for deprecating for this period specifically? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I can continue mentioning how the JC was bought by right-wing owners in 2008 and how the newspaper played a prominent role in slandering pro-Palestinian voices as antisemitic including UK Labor Party former leader Jeremy Corbyn, and how it promoted the new antisemitism concept which included anti-Zionism. Also notable that JC had too many IPO violations since 2018. [4] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

There was no change of ownership in 2008. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

My bad, editorship* as mentioned in MEE article. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

1. Are there any other sources deprecated because of the suspected political leanings of their owners? If not, are we going to start doing this? I might have some suggestions.

2 & 3. are the points with substance to my mind. However, the JC have retracted the stories and cut ties with the writer, admitted the mistake and said they are reviewing their procedures for dealing with freelance journalists. This is substantially the same procedure as the Guardian announced faced with a very similar situation.

4. It's baffling that you think that this has bearing on the Jewish Chronicle's reliability.

5. Columnists resigning is not a criterion of reliability or unreliability. Nor, for that matter, is being "unbalanced". Samuelshraga (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

There really is a world of difference between

• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/26/open-door-column-note-to-readers

and

• https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/conclusion-of-jewish-chronicle-investigation-into-elon-perry-daaqr8b9

Do please read them both and compare. Andreas JN466 08:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree re no.4. Re no.5, though, I think columnists resigning can be an indicator of unreliability if their reasons for resigning relate to criteria of reliability. Whereas some of the resigners (e.g. John Ware) have only mentioned a dislike of the editor's politics, most have mentioned being uncomfortable with the lack of transparency about ownership and many have expressed other reliability concerns, as the links already on this page show. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley I agree with you that some specific complaints of the columnists are relevant - and they are discussed by others, as far as I see the relevant concerns relate to the identity of the owners (see again point 1). The fact that columnists resigned in and of itself is not. And the complaints brought by @Makeandtoss - that resigning columnists (stated that the JC's editorial line had become "sensationalist" and "unbalanced" are not germane to this discussion. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA area since 2020. This isn't about the current event, rather the current event appears to be the culmination of issues that have been growing for several years. Multiple external sources have commented on this, as have columnists that have recently ended their association with the paper. Oppose 4 in general. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 pre-2015, option 2 post-2015. It would be insane to deprecate a 183 year old publication, so strongly oppose option 4. I have argued in the talk section above that the IPSO breaches in the 2015-20 period should give rise to caution but not lead to option 3. I would urge those who are swayed by these breaches to read the actual rulings; you will find a couple of serious errors but the majority are fairly trivial and have been more than adequately corrected. I would argue against a generally unreliable status for antisemitism for that period because, prior to Jewish News taking off, the JC was the only UK Jewish paper and therefore the only outlet giving deep coverage to UK antisemitism. Designating it unusable means the whole topic can only be covered in a skewed way. I would therefore urge a formulation such as: “use with caution and attribution” for that topic in that period. Since 2020, the case for General unreliability, especially on Israel/Palestine, is strong, but even here we should explicitly note that there will be exceptions for authoritative contributors such as those who have resigned (eg Anshel Pfeiffer, Colin Shindler). BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  the only outlet giving deep coverage to UK antisemitism

  The problem is that they make all sorts of highly dubious accusations of antisemitism, many of which appear to be politically motivated (i.e., in order to attack people who criticize Israel's treatment of the Palestinians). If the "deep coverage" is dishonest, then using it will not improve Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  That may be your opinion but there are no RSs saying that as far as I know. If we had restrictions on

  BLP and/or ARBPIA in the relevant period, that would address that risk anyway. If we make them generally option 3, then we avoid the risk but also lose a lot of potential to cover antisemitism in UK society. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 pre-2015, option 2 post-2015 Bobfrombrockley really saved me a lot of typing. I also want to emphasize that we really need to be treating most sources, even our top sources like WSJ, NYT etc as green to yellow anytime we are treading into areas where bias etc could come into play. While fundamental facts (times, dates, etc) typically are objective, even good sources can have some bias in how much emphasis they put into certain aspects of a topic or even that they chose to cover a topic at all. This also applies when we look at how much scrutiny is applied to various sources. Outside of the false reports issue (which is hardly unique to this source) are they under the microscope because they are much different than other sources or because their politics disagree with other sources? As a rule we need to put less stock in "the color of a source" and more thought into what the source is claiming and what evidence they present for the claim. Springee (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Objectively speaking, they produce far more false reports than other sources. Including sources we deprecate, like the Daily Mail.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA area since 2020 as per ActivelyDisinterested. The Jewish Chronicle has issues stemming from its recent change in ownership, but those issues are much more clearly problematic, and more evidenced in third-party sources, for Israel/Palestine-related issues then issues outside that topic area. Loki (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3/4 for WP:A/I/PIA area, muslims, and the british left, especially after 2020 seems they used to do good work tho ive seen the ridiculous scandals in the wake of continuing israel palestine conflict. agree for same reasons as loki, springee, hope the org becomes more transparent soon. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 in general, Option 3 for muslims and the British left, Option 3/4 for WP:A/I/PIA area - Based on the provided background and latest developments, and considering JC's longstanding IPSO issues, undisclosed ownership that complicates the evaluation of the publication's impartiality, questionable editorial standards, etc etc. I've been following the gargantuan discussion preluding this RfC. These issues are not recent or limited to their latest scandal. - Ïvana (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 from 2015 onwards. No opinion for 2014 or earlier. In answer to queries about the year: 2015 was the year a general campaign of false allegations of antisemitism was launched against the British left and against Jeremy Corbyn in particular. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  What is your source for the JC having "launched" a "general campaign" in 2015? This was not mentioned in the previous discussion. If the JC actually engaged in a campaign at this time, then a secondary source would say so. I do see that a 2015 JC front-page editorial made claims of antisemitism about Corbyn. But an editorial (even an inaccurate one -- it's an editorial!) is not what means when one says a newspaper has a "general campaign of false allegations", which suggests misconduct. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't the JC in particular it was the British press in general. Restricting the Option 3 to 2015 onwards leaves earlier JC journalism able to be used if people familiar with the history of the paper consider it reliable. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

To clarify then, Davesaurus, you think the British press in general should be option 3 after 2015? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4. The unreliability and political bias of the JC has a long history. Their more recent opaque ownership and financing raises yet further concerns. By 2023 Brian Cathcart calculated that over the previous 5 years the JC had broke the IPSO code an astonishing 41 times* and had lost, or been forced to settle, at least four libel cases. There have been further cases since. This is all the more remarkable, because it has a relatively small circulation. By that metric the JC is substantially worse than other notoriously unreliable publications such as the Daily Mail which Wikipedia deprecated. However, irrespective of the final decision, it needs a strong warning of bias on all politically related, and non-Jewish religious issues. Andromedean (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 for 2020 onwards (dating to the change of ownership). Bias and IPSO complaints from earlier are recoverable issues. Mystery owners are not. The chain of accountability is important. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Bias isn't unreliability. A single scandal, with the freelancers dealt with, isn't an indictment of the whole publication. Andre🚐 19:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Andre, this isn't a single scandal, but multiple breaches of the IPSO code, libel cases, opaque ownership and funding, we are drowning in problems. By all means explain why these aren't relevant but please base your view around the evidence presented in the discussion. It's as if you haven't read anything or decided to insert a straw man fallacy! Andromedean (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Libel cases do not impact the publication's reliability unless they end in a judgment or verdict that is damning to the publication. There was an extensive discussion in the above thread about the IPSO and the ownership and my conclusion is that there's a bit of smoke but no fire (since the fire was extinguished by cutting ties and retracting the problematic material) as far as liability for the publication for the recent scandal, but the IPSO is a red herring since The Times also had a similar number of breaches, and I don't think it matters that it publishes more text, because that's not a metric defined anywhere. The relevant metric is a reputation for upholding accuracy and fact-checking. So long as Al Jazeera, a state-run propaganda outlet owned and operated by Qatar, is generally reliable, I'm not convinced that the ownership standard is one we care about. WP:NEWSORG nor WP:RS define this. The concern is whether the org stands by their fact-checking and corrects errors. Andre🚐 20:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  No. Policy on this is at WP:SOURCE. The publisher matters. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  As it says there, "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It does not mention having to know who owns the publication. Andre🚐 21:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  No. WP:SOURCE says the publisher affects reliability and it even identifies a specific reliable publisher. Also, here we have other sources saying that its unknown publisher is a real problem for the source. Three of its columnists quit because it does not have a reputation for reliability. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  That is a misread of the policy. Jewish Chronicle is the publisher, the question at hand here is whether they are reputable. It doesn't at all mention individuals or groups funding the ownership, that is irrelevant and a reach. The columnists quit due to the recent scandal. The publication has been around for many years, so its reputation is something at hand here for editors to weigh in on. Andre🚐 21:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  No. You misread policy. Jewish Chronicle is the source under discussion. Your contention that it is self-published only makes it unreliable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  It is not self-published, it is a publisher. It is owned by a consortium[5] led by Robbie Gibb. Andre🚐 21:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  You just said again it is a self-publisher. Jewish Chronicle is the publication. If as you claim, Jewish Chronicle is also the publisher, then Jewish Chronicle is self publishing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Your argument makes no sense. Jewish Chronicle is both the publisher and the publication, just like most newspapers. Or technically the publisher is the consortium that owns it, but is also known as Jewish Chronicle. The New York Times is the publication published by The New York Times Co., also a privately owned and operated organization. Self-published is when an individual publishes their own book or article. Jewish Chronicle is the outlet. Andre🚐 21:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  We have mainstream sources across the board, from The Guardian to The Telegraph to The Jerusalem Post to Haaretz, telling us that the identity of the actual owner is unknown. You can't just sweep this concern under the carpet: it is being voiced by media professionals, including former contributors to the Jewish Chronicle, not Wikipedians. Andreas JN466 21:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please show me where in the policy the identity of the owner is mentioned as anything pertaining to its reliability. Andre🚐 21:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  You just admitted that with the Jewish Chronicle, the publication and the publisher here are two different things, although you then pass it off as a 'technicality.' You go on to describe the publisher as the owner. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it's no different than The Nation, published by its namesake owner, The Nation Company, L.P., the Jewish Chronicle is both the publication and an eponymous group that publishes it. Andre🚐 21:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  So, the owner is the publisher. Publisher matters under SOURCE. And the publisher, here has been put in doubt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Continued below. Andreas JN466 22:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Rather than clutter the survey, kindly take this to the discussion section. Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I would just answer this point simply by reiterating the quote by subject matter expert Brian Cathcart: the publication of falsehoods has been a characteristic of the paper’s journalism for years. The problem is not bias, though the source is biased like every newspaper, it is consistent and sustained inaccuracy used to support its biases.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 with the additional considerations of: generally reliable or at least not noticeably objectionable pre-2009, and "use with caution" from 2009 onwards (Pollard era), most notably with respect to BLPs and politics (the source of almost all the libel cases and other complaints), given its significantly worse track record of inaccuracy and sensationalism in this area, and then option 3 for content related to ARBPIA and related politics (including the intersection of race, religion, etc.) from 2020 onwards (the period of uncertain ownership and further step up in the editorial murkiness/malpractice and political beholdenness). Iskandar323 (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 for now. I'm open to changing my !vote if other evidence emerges, but so far I'm only seeing a single story with serious accuracy concerns, which doesn't say much about the broader reliability of the 183 year old newspaper. The other evidence that has been provided against JC's reliability is IPSO complaints. Anyone can file an IPSO complaint, so only the ones IPSO (partially) upheld seem potentially meaningful. As TFD mentioned, there were four of those in the past two years, so I read through those. They all have some kind of merit, but seem fairly minor. One was about the text the Islamic Republic has repeatedly vowed to wipe Israel and Jews off the face of the Earth. Definitely imprecise, but we regularly see worse hyperbole from other biased-but-reliable sources. Another complaint took issue with the text Labour banned him from its list of potential council candidates, saying the candidate was rejected but not (permanently) banned. Also imprecise, but we see far worse errors from WP:GREL sources regularly. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone knows how many complaints the IPSO receives, only changes after a complaint was made. For all publications over the five years 2018 to 2022, IPSO investigated only 3.82% and upheld 0.56% of the remaining complaints. 1.41% were resolved directly by the complainant with the publisher during the process and 0.43% were resolved by IPSO mediation. For examples of complaints about the JC which the IPSO rejected see Thomas Suarez's Youtube video here Andromedean (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 pre-2015, option 2 post-2015 - just gonna second pretty much everything that Bob said. Somewhat lean option 3 for ARBPIA post-2020 but not strongly so, and complete deprecation, especially pre-2015, would be a mistake. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per u:Andrevan. The newspaper handled the latest scandal involving Elon Perry properly by severing the ties with him and removing his articles. Other media outlets have also had similar issues [6]. The IPSO rulings are a nothingburger, other sources like The Times have had multiple IPSO rulings against them as well and others like The Guardian simply choose not to be regulated by IPSO. It would definitely by good to know who owns the newspaper but I'm not sure how it would be relevant. Alaexis_¿question? 20:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per the arguments above. I previously had a somewhat lower opinion based on this scandal, but having read into it, it seems to me that the reliability issue has been sufficiently addressed. The political shift to the right is concerning on a personal level, and so is the departure of experienced and skilled journalists, but neither of those impacts the reliability for facts. The IPSO complaints are mostly the process working as intended, and the offending articles for this current scandal seem to have been removed (and are obviously, as any other thing written by such an author, unusable). The JC still has a reputation for fact-checking and reliability, and until that changes, it would not be reasonable to consider them unreliable, including in the I/P area. In addition, it has an important role of representing British (and other diaspora) Jews, and we should be highly cautious not to run out of centrist/right-leaning diaspora sources, including in the I/P area. I also find the argument about ownership entirely unconvincing: I don’t find it likely that there is any plausible ownership even close to comparably problematic to Al Jazeera, with the state in effect (though at least officially indirectly) both aiding Hamas and funding (with to be fair, no beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence of editorial control) a source we currently consider reliable for I/P. FortunateSons (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Whoa ... this calls for a bit of context:

  • Qatar sent millions to Gaza for years – with Israel’s backing. Here’s what we know about the controversial deal, CNN, 12 December 2023
  • ‘Buying Quiet’: Inside the Israeli Plan That Propped Up Hamas, New York Times, 10 December 2023
    • Just weeks before Hamas launched the deadly Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, the head of Mossad arrived in Doha, Qatar, for a meeting with Qatari officials. For years, the Qatari government had been sending millions of dollars a month into the Gaza Strip — money that helped prop up the Hamas government there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel not only tolerated those payments, he had encouraged them. During his meetings in September with the Qatari officials, according to several people familiar with the secret discussions, the Mossad chief, David Barnea, was asked a question that had not been on the agenda: Did Israel want the payments to continue? Mr. Netanyahu’s government had recently decided to continue the policy, so Mr. Barnea said yes. The Israeli government still welcomed the money from Doha.
  • What Is the Hamas Chief Doing in Qatar?, Der Spiegel, 2 November 2023
    • Qatar is one of NATO's closest allies in the Gulf and has even been designated as a "Major Non-NATO Ally." In 2011, then United States President Barack Obama personally requested that the Emir of Qatar take the leadership of Hamas into his country. At the time, Washington was seeking to establish a communications channel to the Iranian-backed terrorist group. The Americans believed that a Hamas office in Doha would be easier to access than a Hamas bureau in Tehran.
  • Qatar ranks about twenty places above Israel in the Press Freedom Index.

  Andreas JN466 12:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  All we need to do here is look at the editors who !voted anything other than 1 in the snow closed AJ RFCs. Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Selfstudier can you explain this comment about our need to look at editors? BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think its pretty clear, don't you? If some editors want to go on about AJ in this RFC then pointing to their comments at the AJ RFC makes sense, no? Selfstudier (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Israel's low press freedom rating probably has to do with its regular involvement in military conflicts, but in any case, why is it relevant here? No Israeli sources are being discussed. Qatar's rating of 58.48 isn't great, and that reflects a mix of state-owned (e.g. Al Jazeera) and independently-owned (e.g. Doha News) news orgs.

  Returning to the topic of JC, it seems very speculative to say that there might be donors or lenders we don't know about, who might attempt to exert influence, which might impact reliability. With Al Jazeera, it's hard to prove anything but there are many signs of Qatari influence, such as leaked cables where US diplomats discussed the use of Al Jazeera in diplomatic negotiations. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree it would be speculative for us to say that "there might be donors or lenders we don't know about, who might attempt to exert influence, which might impact reliability". But we have a wide spectrum of mainstream sources saying it, from The Telegraph to The Guardian to Haaretz to The Jerusalem Post. We have insiders like Lee Harpin, senior reporter at the JC till 2021, who left after the takeover and now

  • says the new owners wanted more views "well to the right of the Tory party",
  • that "The current predicament of the @JewishChron does not come as a surprise. Leadership chosen on ideological grounds by those who gained control of the publication. Communal orgs should have been raising concerns months and months ago",
  • and that "The rot is deeper and for regular observers and readers of the paper, its direction over the last few years has been tragic to witness".

  You'd have to bring counterarguments published by people with similar standing in equivalent venues, rather than arguing with the people here. Andreas JN466 18:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Fair point, there is an accusation of owner influence rather than mere speculation. That said, every news org has criticism from disgruntled employees, especially in the past ~20 years when many news orgs had to undergo major changes. Harpin's criticism actually seems much less concerning than, for example, Peter Oborne's criticism of The Daily Telegraph, which includes accusations of owner and advertiser influence as well as (frankly more relevant) a focus on clicks over reliability. One can find comparable accusations from disgruntled employees of most major news outlets. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, at least you know who the owner of The Telegraph is. ;) I take your point about disgruntled employees, but the JC does seem to have had rather a lot of them since the takeover, and the concerns have been echoed very, very widely, both in Israel and the UK, by outside observers. Lionel Barber weighed in today: [7] Regards, Andreas JN466 21:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Andreas I'm confused why you would say that Qatar ranks about twenty places above Israel.

  The comparison you're discussing is Qatari state-owned media with a privately held British newspaper. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. Option 3ers believe this isn't about a single event, yet can't point to evidence of unreliability beyond that event. Meanwhile, substantiated IPSO complaints are at the level of other major newspapers like The Times showing there isn't a pattern of disinformation like the Daily Mail. Al Jazeera is relevant because I'm sure we can all agree holding Jewish publications to a different standard than Muslim ones is wrong and will increase bias on wiki. It's bizarre that this standard is applied here to say that Qatari ownership of Al Jazeera can't impact its reliability but ownership of the JC does.

RSN and RSP are a good way to skew article bias by designating sources supporting certain viewpoints as unreliable so as to remove them from articles in contentious areas. Judging publications individually is naïve in such an environment because editors will unconsciously create different standards for their favoured sources. We need to consciously ensure we're holding all sources in the Israel-Palestine conflict area to the same standard. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chess:The times has 12 IPSO rulings against it and 5 for its website, which is shared with the Sunday Times, since 2018, publishing 312 editions a year. The JC has 6 for the jc.com, which have not been counted up to now, and 12 for its paper edition. This is over just 52 yearly editions.

To suggest these numbers are similar is a clear misrepresentation of the facts, given the probability of a the JC publishing an actionable falsehood in a given edition is AT LEAST 6 times higher (we do not know how many of the website stories originated in the Sunday Times). This disparity is further compounded by the fact that the JC is around a third of the length of the times, and so produces many fewer articles. A generous calculation would be that a JC story is ten times more likely to be punished by IPSO than the Times.

It is also clear from the rulings that the Times' corrections are spread over a range of topics, whereas all of the JC's false stories relate to the British left, Muslims and Palestine. This is more a campaign of disinformation by the JC rather than good faith errors. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

For reference, evidence of unreliability comprises points like the following:

• Publishing a string of sensational stories described as "wild fabrications" or "wild inventions" in Israeli and British papers
• Failure to vet (or knowing publication of) the falsified résumé of the freelancer writing these stories, who was instantly rumbled by Israeli journalists
• Failure to conduct a proper investigation after the fabrication scandal
• Failure to publish a transparent report on what happened (see e.g. [8] for comment)
• Your claim that upheld IPSO complaints are running at the same level as for The Times is false.
  • For material published since 2020 The Jewish Chronicle has 5 listed under "v thejc.com", 7 listed under "v The Jewish Chronicle".
  • Equivalent numbers for The Times: 5 listed under "v thetimes.co.uk", 8 listed under "v The Times"
  • Equivalent numbers for The Daily Mail (deprecated): 6 listed under "v Daily Mail" (incl. "v Scottish Daily Mail, excl. "v Hull Daily Mail"), 11 listed under "v Mail Online"
  • The Times and The Daily Mail are daily papers, The Jewish Chronicle is a weekly, with far fewer articles per issue. Its collection of upheld IPSO rulings per article is an order of magnitude greater than for The Times and The Daily Mail.
• Number of lost libel cases seems large relative to the size of the publication. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag.
• The owner of Al Jazeera is known. The owner of The Jewish Chronicle is not. This is a unique situation, and the paper has taken a turn to the far right under the new, anonymous ownership. There are multiple mainstream media reports saying this lowers confidence in the paper's reliability.
• Multiple mainstream media reports (some listed in the Background section below) have deplored the loss of journalistic standards at the publication. Half a dozen of the paper's top columnists have left in despair.

Andreas JN466 09:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

If we're deprecating publications for a single freelancer fabricating stories let's get rid of the New York Times because of Jayson Blair and Judith Miller. Additionally, the New York Times also has anonymous owners as it's publicly traded. We only ban reliable sources based on their ownership if the ownership is negatively influencing the publication. Please point me to the cases where a source was banned because its owner was unknown, because asserting this is a unique situation because the paper has taken a turn to the far right means this is because of the views of the Jewish Chronicle.

This is a very high standard for the Jewish Chronicle that we do not hold other reliable sources to. The New York Times has had journalists fabricate content. The result of their investigation was to fire the journalist. This is the same thing the Jewish Chronicle did,[9] so explain why you're not holding the Jewish Chronicle to a different standard when you say they failed to conduct a proper investigation after the fabrication scandal. Or say that the New York Times is unreliable as well.

IPSO complaints are not a way to quantify unreliability. Complaints would only quantify reliability if they all represented the same flaw and were comparable across an entire industry, but IPSO complaints can be made for a variety of reasons and WP:GREL publications like The Guardian opt out of them. Your math shows that the Jewish Chronicle is an order of magnitude worse than the Daily Mail and that The Times is (5+8)/(6+11)=76% as unreliable as the Daily Mail. If you believed the Jewish Chronicle was 10x worse than the Daily Mail you wouldn't have !voted for "Option 2 in general". If the number of IPSO complaints had any statistical validity The Times would be at WP:MREL or below.

RSP is very quickly devolving into a method to enforce groupthink, because declaring a source as unreliable or just WP:MREL means one can effectively prevent its viewpoints from being presented on Wikipedia. Additionally, because the standard for reliable sources is de facto "does it agree with other reliable sources?", we end up with a ratchet effect that makes it harder to prove a source is reliable as the number of reliable sources that source agrees with goes down. This eventually leads to a corpus of sources that uniformly agree on what the truth is.

The only way to prevent selective exclusion of sources is to consciously question whether our standards are objective. You can't handwave this burden away when it's been brought up repeatedly by other editors. The reason why I !voted Option 1 isn't because I am disputing most of your claims, it's because you cannot show why similar evidence would prove unreliability for other publications. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree. Andre🚐 15:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

a) Most people are not suggesting deprecation and b) It's not just about rogue freelancers so lose the strawmen. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

!voters aren't suggesting deprecation because the Jewish Chronicle is obviously more reliable than the Daily Mail. But the IPSO argument implies that the JC is 10x worse than the Daily Mail. Both cannot be true at once. I'm refuting the IPSO complaint counters with a reduction to absurdity that demonstrates why the number of IPSO complaints isn't a meaningful metric to evaluate sources on.

Rejecting IPSO means the rogue freelancer story is the only evidence of false information being published by the source. You have provided no other specific cases.

Columnists resigning due to changes in ownership/political slant can only prove bias on the part of the JC. As the editnotice you're supposed to see when editing this page says, bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution.

The objective standard we should be following is whether a source can be used for citing false information on Wikipedia. We rank and categorize sources to prevent false information from entering the encyclopedia. You can write as much as you want, but if you can't give specific examples of false information, then you haven't shown the source is unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

All of the upheld IPSO cases found problems with accuracy – typically incendiary, false claims ascribing words to people they had not actually written or said. This sort of thing is apt to cause BLP problems here. I don't understand why you think such inaccuracies are irrelevant for our purposes, or do not qualify as "false information" (and please go a bit more lightly on the bold). Andreas JN466 20:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources also have substantiated IPSO complaints. Our dispute is over whether counting the number is acceptable, because you haven't bothered analyzing their specifics. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

These IPSO rulings seem quite similar to me in nature (in one case, practically identical).

You are proposing that the number of upheld IPSO rulings against a publication (proven inaccuracies, misrepresentations or libels) should be irrelevant to us. That is hardly sensible.

Your previous post was a textbook example of circular reasoning – you said, "the Jewish Chronicle is obviously more reliable than the Daily Mail. But the IPSO argument implies that the JC is 10x worse than the Daily Mail. Both cannot be true at once. You start with the assumption that the JC is better than the Daily Mail, so if it collects ten times more adverse IPSO rulings per article than the Daily Mail, then that proves IPSO rulings don't matter. Absurd indeed – but not in the way you mean.

The fact that these IPSO rulings generally occurred in a single topic area makes it all the more important to take note of the risk we would take by hosting the JC's truth claims unvetted and unfiltered by other, more reliable publications, here in our BLPs and other articles in that topic area. If the claim is important, another more reliable publication will pick it up, and we can cite that. That is responsible sourcing for an encyclopedia, given the substantial concerns about the JC voiced in the press. Andreas JN466 19:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You start with the assumption that the JC is better than the Daily Mail, so if it collects ten times more adverse IPSO rulings per article than the Daily Mail, then that proves IPSO rulings don't matter. Absurd indeed – but not in the way you mean.

I'm pointing out your absurd double standard where you argue that the Jewish Chronicle is statistically worse than the Daily Mail, but then only !vote for Option 2. It makes it obvious that your !vote doesn't follow from your stated reasoning. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The IPSO and fabrication problems are limited to a specific topic area. The "special consideration" in my Option 2 vote is that Option 3/4 should be applied to that topic area where there is strong evidence of poor reliability. I would be happy to cite the JC on lots of other topics – music, the arts, film and theatre reviews, biographies of Jewish scientists, etc. Andreas JN466 08:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chess Well, have a look what the NYT did when it discovered one of their reporters was guilty of fabrications:

• 7,350-word front page story, with transparent and exhaustive reporting of what had happened.

What we got from the JC is this nothingburger:

• 106 words of generalities.

To claim that this is in any way equivalent to what happened at the NYT is risible. You don't have to take my word for it, because we have journalists pointing this shortfall out in the mainstream press.

• "Thinnest form of contrition" (Times of Israel)
• "Though Wallis Simons apologised to readers, he offered no explanation for how the deception occurred. Just an assurance that standards will be tightened. This will not do." (Prospect Magazine).

The concerns about ownership etc. are voiced in the British and Israeli mainstream press, across the political spectrum.

Using the Jewish Chronicle for WP:A/I/PIA coverage after this episode is not my idea of due diligence. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." If they sort their operation out, we can always revisit. Regards, Andreas JN466 16:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

What would writing a longer statement with a more detailed apology do? Elon Perry lied about his identity and his sources. He was caught within two months. The "transparent and exhaustive reporting" of the New York Times is full of florid prose about Blair's travel habits, counselling, and personal problems as he was a full-time employee of the New York Times.

I don't think the Jewish Chronicle would have any of that information for a freelancer, so most of that article couldn't be written even if the JC wanted to. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

He was caught instantly by Israeli journalists when he made claims that Netanyahu's family then tried to give extra visibility to. (A similar PR effort was simultaneously underway in Germany, with the Bild Zeitung tabloid publishing a related fake news story: [10][11])

Perry was caught by the simple expedient of Israeli journalists asking the IDF whether it really had the materials Perry claimed they had (they replied it was a "wild invention"), and then checking whether Perry really was a professor at Tel Aviv University (he was not). If the JC is unable to perform such simple tasks then it lacks basic qualifications for reliable reporting on such matters.

The editor should have explained to readers how contact with Perry was established, why they did not fact-check his résumé given that he made some tall and easily disproved claims about himself, why they did not try to contact the IDF to corroborate Perry's stories (standard practice in reliable publications is to require two independent sources for news stories), etc. This is all basic bread and butter for mainstream outlets, and the JC is simply and evidently out of its league here if they can't or won't apply such basic due diligence. Andreas JN466 09:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 in General. Option 3 for issues relating to Palestine and the war in Gaza Its bias is very clear and overt. But as other editors have pointed out, this does not necessarily mean it deserves depreciation. However, depreciation and considering a source unreliable on a single topic are two very different things. For the same reason why editors are rightfully sceptical of Pro-Russian sources reporting on the war in Ukraine, it is best to be consistent and also treat with some scepticism the reliability of the Jewish Chronicle when dealing with Gaza and issues related to Palestine. Genabab (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 since 2024, Option 3 2015-2024— the problems with editorial standards at the newspaper have been ongoing for years and are only getting worse. (t · c) buidhe 23:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  The idea that JC covers antisemitism in the UK is not a good reason to keep the paper when it has lost any reputation for reliability in that area. We should be looking for scholarly sources to cover these controversies anyway. (t · c) buidhe 23:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's not possible on a technical level to deprecate a source for a period of time. It has to be all or nothing because the deprecation edit filter can't determine when an article was published. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  WP:DEPREC assessments are independent of the presence and feasibility of an edit filter. Andreas JN466 09:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  In every prior subject-area or time-limited deprecation discussion, the technical issues relating to the edit filter has come up. So yes, the feasibility of a subject-area deprecation needs to be addressed if we're going to adopt it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  There are deprecated sources that are not subject to an edit filter (the National Enquirer is an example) – you can have one without the other. But consensus seems to lean towards "generally unreliable" anyway, rather than deprecation. Andreas JN466 06:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I think Buidhe makes a very pertinent point. If the JC is frequently libelling people and making false claims around antisemitism, the fact it is the only source reporting on some cases of alleged antisemitism means these claims should generally not be included in our pages. Especially in cases of BLP.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA (including antisemitism) and Muslims, option 2 for other issues, per comments above and below (including mine).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  While it is a legitimate !vote that it be deemed unreliable on antisemitism (I have above argued that this would be a mistake, while Buidhe and Boynamedsue have made the argument for such a ruling), I just want to additionally argue that antisemitism in general should not be covered by AIPIA, only antisemitism directly related to Israel/Palestine, which I believe was the case in all of the relevant IPSO breaches. Personally, I think it is dangerous to not be able to cite the UK's only Jewish newspaper on the topic of antisemitism in the UK, without any evidence that it is unreliable on this topic in general (as opposed to antisemitism directly related to Israel/Palestine). At any rate, I think you'd need to present an evidence/policy-based argument rather than use ARBPIA. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm confused. Don't any of the other 4+ Jewish newspapers in the UK cover antisemitism? What's this "only XYZ" business about? And if the others don't cover the same incidents as the JC, perhaps that's indicative of the types of incident that have gotten it into libel and defamation territory. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Jewish News was basically a local paper until ~2020, at which point it became a better source than JC. Hamodia, Jewish Telegraph and Jewish Tribune are all impossible to use for Wikipedia as not web accessible, as well as very parochial. For 2015-20, JC is only source that fully covered antisemitism in the UK. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  I only had to look as far back as this year to find an IPSO breach without a mention of Israel or Palestine which could be inadvertently interpreted as antisemitism.

  Lunn v The Jewish Chronicle. Just from memory I recall they changed what was said about Marc Wadsworth only after mediation

  I also know that the JC has made similar mistakes as other publications over the IHRA definition, that doesn't excuse the JC Andromedean (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well if it is indeed a pattern of unreliability in relation to non-Israel/Palestine-related antisemitism, then this needs to be a separate topic area to the Israel/Palestine topic area, and consensus would need to be established for this.

  The Media Reform Centre report (a terrible piece of research imho) doesn't say anything indicating that JC is unreliable; its only mention is that it reported on Corbyn's Facebook posts long before other media outlets did. If we designate the media outlets that the MRC report indicts unreliable, we'd need to stop using BBC, ITN, Sky, Guardian, Telegraph and Independent, which personally I'd oppose. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA area since 2020 per ActivelyDisinterested. As usual in UK media, Private Eye seems to be one of the few places taking any notice of this issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 for topics related to Israel, Palestine, Muslims, British left, accusations of antisemitism and BLP claims irrespective of timeframe, option 4 in general since at least 2020. As for its reliability concerning other subjects in earlier periods, I don't know the publication well enough to make a clear vote. I think the publication's unreliability during the last few years has been established pretty well by other editors, so I see no reason to elaborate on that. However, I would consider it generally unreliable on these issues irrespective of timeframe; besides the fact that the JC has been openly Zionist since the early 20th century (hence qualifying as a biased source although not necessarily unreliable), the article about it mentions a lot of instances of the JC accusing people with views critical of Israel of antisemitism at least 56 years back, when they were sued for accusing an MP of antisemitic views with no evidence and had to issue an apology, and it also mentions numerous occassions - some of which predate the 2015 threshold - where the JC has posted serious false accusations against people and institutions with an opposing view to the JC's. Among other things, in 2009 the JC falsely accused a peace activist of harbouring suicide bombers, and in 2014 it falsely claimed that the Royal Institute of British Architects had voted for a "ban on Jews" from the International Union of Architects, while what in fact was voted on was a suspension on an Israeli architect association involved in the building of illegal Israeli settlements. Posting such false allegations against people and institutions with opposing views clearly cross the line between biased reporting and pure misinformation/fabrication, and as the above examples show, the paper has engaged in this behaviour long prior to 2015. I find it obvious that a publication engaging in deliberately posting misinformation to promote its views and smear opponents should be labeled as generally unreliable, and as the paper has engaged in this behaviour prior to the 2015/2020 threshold, I don't think it is appropriate to limit this judgement to this limited timeframe. As for other topics, I don't think I have enough background information of its reporting throughout its history to make a statement about its reliability on other topics in earlier years, but I do think that its opaque ownership, along with its history of posting fabricated stories and misinformation, raises serious questions about its reliability on other issues as well. --Te og kaker (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  There was a case 56 years back, when JC published an opinion piece by one Labour MP calling another antisemitic; this is not disinformation, but opinion. Then there was a 41 year gap and they published a letter in which what the Guardian called a "peace activist" (and the Press Gazette specificies was an International Solidarity Movement activist) was falsely accused of harbouring two British men who he had simply met, who then carried out a suicide bomb in Israel, in a case that doesn't mention antisemitism. That's not a pattern. There's an plausible argument that the 2015+ pattern starts earlier, with the 2009 case (although this case doesn't relate to antisemitism), but considering how much coverage of antisemitism there was in these decades it would be perverse to stop using it on that topic because of the 1968 opinion piece. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC) (A reminder that neither an opinion piece nor a letter to the editor would be considered usable as a source for facts, especially biographical facts, anyway, so these two examples are really irrelevant. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC))

  However, the MP Christopher Mayhew sued the JC and received a public apology in the High Court. His argument was that, whilst his comments were anti-Zionist, they were not antisemitic. Andromedean (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  OK, but the 41 year gap between that and the next instance doesn't suggest a pattern does it? And would the article by Edelman ever be used on WP as a source for anything apart from this controversy itself? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Similarly the 2014 RIBA case is not a case of inaccuracy; it's a case of articulating a strong opinion. Once again, bias =/= unreliability, and we would not use an editorial as a source for facts anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the architect story is clearly comment, but it is a leader, the official view of the paper, and the nature and way this opinion is presented is pretty indicative of the way the JC's very extreme positions work. The article doesn't mention the fact that the ban was motivated by the participation of members of the Israeli architects' association in the construction of illegal settlements in occupied territory, a warcrime according to the Geneva convention. It also conflates Jews and Israelis, which according to most definitions of antisemitism... is antisemitism. This lack of context and misleading framing is also typical of its news coverage.--Boynamedsue (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree an egregiously biased leader reflects more badly on a source than an egregiously biased op ed, and this is indeed evidence of a drift towards hard right positions under Pollard. But these opinions about what constitutes antisemitism are common opinions that we'd see in plenty of reliable sources (e.g. the Wall Street Journal or Telegraph) and not evidence of unreliability. Also important to note that the leader was one para in an edition that included other articles on the topic, a topic it had extensively covered, including the illegal settlement issue that provoked the boycott. E.g:[12] I'd argue that we'd never use this leader as a source for facts, but it'd be fine to use a news article on this issue (like this one) as a source for facts in a WP article, while of course better to use alongside other sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

That particular article is much better than some it's published, and could have appeared in any reliable source. The problem is the sheer quantity of unreliable content it has put out means we have a hard job to separate the decent articles (which I assume that one was, doesn't seem to have any obvious howlers) and the dodgy ones.--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

If we look at its extensive coverage of this RIBA boycott (more extensive than any other source) I think we can clearly see that all the news articles are very solid, while the editorials and op eds are extreme. The editorials might become due when other, secondary sources (in this case architecture media) refer to them, but otherwise we’d ignore them and stick with the news articles. This is a good illustration of why designating its news articles unreliable because its editorials are extreme would be a bad idea. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2, on I/P since 2019/2020, with protest of 2015 date -- please pay attention to sources! The only RS that have been posted for JC's change in reliability have been in the 2019--2021 area (for the IPSO case alerts and owner change) and 2024 reporting scandal. This has been discussed extensively in the thread immediately preceding the RfC. The first !voter here posted a 2015 date but offered no reasoning, and everyone to follow seems to have parroted that date. As I detailed below, giving opportunity to comment for weeks: the 2015 date, when it was brought up exactly once prior, is an artifact of the fact that IPSO started reporting in 2015 (it was founded 2014/11); the only other controversy that year was an editorial about Jeremy Corbyn. I am pleading that the closer reads this and gives the cutoff date consideration, and includes the previous thread. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

If you are going by IPSO rulings and the comments of the RS Cathcart, we should date back to 2018 not 2019. The best cut off is 2008, the editorship of Pollard, who was forced out after bankrupting the paper with libel settlements. But he was already committing libel in 2012, falsely accusing an Islamic charity of involvement in terrorism. They accused an entirely innocent man of being involved in a terrorist bombing in 2008 (just two months after Pollard took over) again paying damages. It is worth noting that corrections were only published here as part of legal settlements for damages, the JC resisted correcting their lies to the very last. The lower quantity evidence of unreliability prior to 2015 is precisely for the reason you state, IPSO, toothless and incompetent as it is, didn't yet exist to document the JC's abuse and provide recourse to its victims.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Why 2018? What specifically happened in 2018?

I can tell you specifically what (many) IPSO violations and internal communications regarding JC happened in 2019 and 2020, and further events in 2021.

(Not to get into the, but "being involved in a terrorist bombing" is a complete misreading of the very short article you link. Also just a reminder to everyone that importantly the UK has looser standards of libel than the US.) SamuelRiv (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, if a paper stares someone has "harboured" or "sheltered" terrorist bombers, I consider that to be an accusation of involvement. It is certainly libellous and false, as shown by the fact the JC were forced to pay 30k for damage to reputation.

I choose 2018 because that is the date that Professor Brian Cathcart refers to as the beginning of their insane run of IPSO judgments. 2018 was when they falsely reported comments by Mike Sivier implying he had denied the holocaust, and falsely claimed that Mark Wadsworth had "abused" Ruth Smeeth (you can find the video online, there is no way to characterise it as abuse).

And as for libel law, yes the UK's libel law is tougher than almost any country, but it meshes very well with our BLP policy. If you can't prove it and it damages reputation, don't publish it.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The Sivier case is a really week case for establishing unreliability. The single inaccuracy IPSO found in that case was as follows. Sivier had said “I’m not going to comment on ‘thousands’ instead of ‘millions’ because I don’t know, but the Nazi holocaust involved many other groups as well as Jews, and it seems likely that the SWP was simply being ‘politically correct’ [in not mentioning Jewish victims]”. JC summarised this as: “remarks he made about Jews and Zionism, including a claim that he could not comment on whether thousands or millions of Jews died in the Holocaust he said ‘I don’t know’”. After he contacted them saying he didn’t deny the Holocaust, they amended the article to include his response. This is not grounds for a designation of unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The IPSO findings on that case say: The article gave the impression that the complainant had said something which he had not, on a subject liable to cause widespread offence; a clarification was required to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii). The publication had offered to issue a clarification stating the complainant’s position that he had been referring to why the leaflet made this claim when he said “I don’t know”, and stating his position on the number of Jewish victims of the Holocaust. This clarification made the complainant’s position clear, and was sufficient to meet the terms of Clause 1(ii).

The way you've summarised it is apt to leave the same false impression as the JC did, and was slammed for. Press Gazette summary. Andreas JN466 08:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The former IPSO case was a breach, the latter was not (it was resolved in mediation). Note that JC had one breach in 2017 and one in 2018; in looking up again the 2019 memo, I did find a reference on investigation starting as early as 2018 (citation to letter by Lord Faulks, Twitter post, 3rd image. As I've said previously I was fine with saying anything in the 2019--2021 area as an approximate cut-off year guidance (precision on that is deceptive), so given this 2018--2021 is appropriate too. All I care about is that these dates remain justifiable to sources, and that when people !vote they know what they are voting on. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, the 2017 breach is not particularly concerning. It is outside the topic area where the JC's run of bad stories occurs. Distressing and unfair as it was to the individual concerned, it seems to be a kind of "cost of doing business" error that all papers, even the most reliable, suffer from.--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA area since 2020 A newspapers that refuses to even disclose who owns it (and hence can exert control over coverage) must be treated with caution, and probably not used for sensitive areas. The same applies to media funded by dictatorial regimes, for example Al Jazeera. Jeppiz (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA area since 2020 (or 2019 as mentioned by SamuelRiv), Option 2 in general for the same time period - given the pattern of IPSO rulings, reliable secondary source coverage of its problems, and evidence of unreliability given by Andreas JN466 (Jayen466). starship.paint (RUN) 15:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 It is quite difficult to get IPSO to rule against a newspaper. Breaking the IPSO code IPSO's code 41 times between 2018 and 2023 must mean that this is an unreliable source Isoceles-sai (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Background (Jewish Chronicle)

• Mainstream media reports:
  • Alan Rusbridger: Who really funds the Jewish Chronicle? Why it's troubling that we don’t know…, Prospect Magazine, 26 April 2024
  • 'Great disgrace': High-profile British-Jewish journalists resign JC over scandal, The Jerusalem Post, 16 September 2024
  • The ‘fabrications’ and resignations that plunged The Jewish Chronicle into crisis, The Telegraph, 16 September 2024
  • Opinion | Jewish Chronicle Scandal: When 'pro-Israel' Means Becoming a Megaphone for the Netanyahu Government, Haaretz, 18 September 2024
  • How the Elon Perry fabrication scandal shook the Jewish Chronicle, The Guardian, 20 September 2024
• History of IPSO rulings against The Jewish Chronicle:
  • The Jewish Chronicle
  • thejc.com --Andreas JN466 11:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Jewish Chronicle)

• This articlel, from The Guardian, should be relevant. At lot of it seems to be from Elon Perry, whose articles they've recently retracted en masse. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I am concerned with, as are several of the reports on this, about their vague, inadequate response. The statement they made is more like a cover-up: 'we won't tell you the details, we've 'memory holed' this so it will go away, just trust us.' As I suggested in the prior discussion, we should expect when something like this happens that the outlet 'reports the hell out of it'. We should know from them who and why touched off the investigation, who was involved, what was false, what can't be confirmed, where it leads, what charges that preceded the investigation and arose during it could be validated, denied, or for which there is no evidence, what was their investigation, what didn't they investigate, why, what processes went wrong in their organization, what the fixes are, etc. etc. etc. We should also expect disciplining of the editors involved. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2024

  For reference, this was the statement summarising the investigation, published one day after the announcement that an investigation was underway. --Andreas JN466 11:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have linked those in my comment for others' sake. That's what my comment refers to as inadequate, to say the least. Instead, they are 'sitting on the story', not reporting perhaps among the most important news, in the outlet's history. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment These additional qualfications add nothing, since they already apply to every other news publication.

For all green-lighted news media, they are considered generally reliable for news and additional considerations apply for all other information they publish. See News organizations: "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). [However] [e]ditorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

Also, per Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."

No one has pointed out how this source has caused damage or even that there has been any discussion in articles about specific claims linked to it.

TFD (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no doubt we should do a better job of making the policies cabining news clear everywhere (including on the perennial sources page) -- indeed, one of the reasons I think that page may be unclear (despite the extensive introductory hand-wringing), is it likely suggests in its format, news and other types of sources are the same (we should probably breakout news outlets from others, although I don't want us to then suggest all other sources are the same--perhaps sectioning would be better). But "editing notes" is what we should collectively give, and it only makes sense on Wikipedia that there would be collective editing notes, especially concerning its most plainly used but also difficult to use source, news. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Objection: There is no cutoff year offered in the RfC, despite many or most in the prior discussion saying that there was a distinct and recent change in JC's reliability, with several sourced dates offered. So voters have added cutoff dates themselves -- but where on earth did the 2015 cutoff year come from? It's not been mentioned at all in the previous thread in the context of when problematic behavior actually occurred. All I could find is User:Bobfrombrockley's 17 Sept comment comparing the total number of complaints since 2015 for the JC and The Times. They do not say why 2015 is the cutoff -- presumably it is because IPSO began in September 2014, so that's the first year of their reporting. That is not the first year in which problematic behavior was reported by the JC -- as far as I can tell the first year in which secondary sources report problematic behavior, or report that JC internally was concerned about such behavior, was 2019. This is not the same as picking a year arbitrarily and counting the IPSO violations thenceforth -- we are taking a RS article that cites either internal communications about violations, or a particular violation as a bellweather event, for their own judgement that JC has dropped standards after that particular point. No such source has said 2015. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think Option 2 is supposed to cover it case by case after 2015 onwards, especially for non I/P stuff, and Option 3 for PIA after 2020 should be a clear enough point where facts from TJC should not be sourced for I/P issues. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  As per the discussion above, the 2015 date stems from a time where TJC started to receive a number of IPSO complaints. We are not writing an article here; RS are not specifically needed to make an argument that a source is unreliable for one reason or another. Cortador (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please see my direct response to your !vote above (but reply here): what is your source -- because it was never said in this thread -- that there were "a number of IPSO complaints" in 2015? What is your source that the number of IPSO complaints in 2015 was significant compared to others? (Compare to the years we have sources for that IPSO complaints were significant, the years that alerts internal and external were raised.) SamuelRiv (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I have not voted in this poll yet. Cortador (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think 2015 makes sense as a transition from green to yellow status as this is when the run of IPSO complaints began which all relate to the controversy over Antisemitism in the British Labour Party which began that year. This is when Brian Cathcart seems to start with his denunciation (although his main target is IPSO), so if you see the IPSO complaints alone as grounds for option 3 then it makes sense to start then. But there's also a strong case that 2015-20 was marked, not marked by general unreliability, but issues that call for additional considerations, e.g. extreme caution on the topics of the British left and Muslims or perhaps Israel/Palestine (although nobody has really given an argument for that specifically). Apart from Cathcart, all other RSs take 2020/2021 as a starting point: the mystery owners, compounded by the appointment of an amateur and highly ideological editor a year later. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell the only direct relationship JC bears to the antisemitism controversy is their front page editorial against Corbyn. While that's significant, it's an editorial. Does that speak to reliability, in 2015? (Much less unreliability in news coverage of the left, Muslims, or I/P in 2015, the year of the editorial?) SamuelRiv (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I think we have a problem here already, because people who are !voting option 2 are often not saying what they mean by it. I would invite them to clarify, or we are giving the closer a bit of a hospital pass. Option 2 covers a lot of ground, my own !vote is effectively option 2 prior to 2020, but the important part is exactly what considerations users think should apply.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  This is a very good point. Quite a few editors have !voted for option 2 for the whole period from 1841 to 2015 without indicating what extra considerations should apply, which isn't a usable conclusion. (For me, the additional considerations that should apply after 2015 is attribution and caution on the British left and Muslims, especially for BLP stuff.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  The previous RFC close mentioned pre 2010 and I chose not to date my comments on the grounds that stuff that old can in all likelihood be sourced better elsewhere and if not, one would have to ask why not. Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment It concerns me deeply that despite the mountain of evidence against the Jewish Chronicle (JC) editors are still attempting to find periods and categories it might be considered reliable so as to grant exemptions. This privilege wasn't granted to the deprecated Daily Mail which has a long history and covers a wider subject range. If exemptions are granted, we need to ensure exclusion of a broader range such as politics and all other religions, not just Israel, Muslims and Labour. With regard to timing the JCs more extreme lurch to the right can probably traced to Stephen Pollard. Only two years before being appointed editor in 2008, he used far-right rhetoric like “preserve Western civilisation” from the threat of “Islamists.” and “the Left, in any recognisable form, is now the enemy” in his blog. Fast forward to today and the JC are promoting Donald Trump. This is an endemic problem not a temporary one. Andromedean (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Surely the issues with Pollard relate to bias not unreliability? We consider the Telegraph or Wall Street Journal reliable sources, despite plenty of that rhetoric. And despite what he wrote in his blog in 2006, he still published lots of left-wing opinion in the JC. More importantly, it's not a "privilege" if a long-running newspaper that has not been accused of serious improprieties in its close to two centuries is assumed to be generally reliable; it's our default for all legacy media (e.g. regional print newspapers)unless evidence is brought against it. With the Daily Mail, the downgrading decision was based on a massive body of evidence of uncorrected fabrication and plagiarism that went back a long time. It's not comparable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but I notice that on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources noticeboard a comment is often made regarding bias, notability, sensationalism, propaganda as well as reliability. Isn't this the area to discuss this? Andromedean (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I would say no. Pollard heralded in the period of reduced reliability and presided over the initial accumulation of IPSO complaints. It is obviously harder to tell how the publication performed prior to this (the 2014 formation of IPSO), but there is no particular reason to consider that it was likely any better. The paper was first successfully sued for damages under Pollard in 2010,[13] and Pollard is synonymous with other woes for the paper. Everything from 2009 onwards deserves a sharper lense. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Your citation for "The paper was first successfully sued for damages under Pollard in 2010" actually refers to a blogpost he wrote for a different publication, The Spectator, in 2008, prior to his arrival at JC. I guess the point might still stand that this reflects poorly on him as a choice of editor (The Spectator is yellow on RSP) but not in the way being sued for damages would be. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Part of that is news especially, "old news", is assumed to have ever-limited shelf life for much of what Wikipedia does and wants to do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  The first draft of history, as they say. The problem is that for many Wikipedia topics that is all there ever is; and even for topics that scholars subsequently do write about, the scholarly sources often don't make it into Wikipedia as the article is full already. Andreas JN466 14:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  The theory is that merging or updating or replacement should occur to render the long view (not sticking to a first draft). So that, the 'British left in the 1980s' is essentially a differently useful topic than the 'British left today'. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Whilst I take on the earlier advice that this RfC isn't a simple vote count, it would be highly challenging to assess it fairly due to the multitude of categories editors have inserted. To carry out the analysis fairly and avoid double or partial counting would require a model and qualification in set analysis! Do we need technical or independent assistance or agree to stick with simpler categories? Other RfCs must go through the same difficulties. My view is that there's no need for dates, although I could be convinced to give it a pass prior to Pollard, if only for my sanity!Andromedean (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the closer generally looks to see if there is a rough consensus among the vagaries of participants differing expressions of thought, not any mathematical certainty. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've placed notifications at the Journalism[14], Newspapers[15], Politics of the United Kingdom[16], and Israel Palestine Collaboration[17] projects to seek further input. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'll notify the WikiProject Judaism and Jewish history as well. Andre🚐 19:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  No objection to additional notifications, the four I chose seemed to be the most generic matches to the issues involved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Yes. Anonymous can have no reputation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

If such standard were applied to all sources, we'd have to mark as unreliable any source for whom we don't know all the board members. The sources you provided do list a number of people. A silent partner in any venture is not unusual or a sign of unreliability. The Companies House listing for Jewish Chronicle Media Ltd also suggests no change in its status from a private limited company. Instead, the only change that appeared to have been made was to remove Gibb as a person with significant control, replaced by Jonathan Kandel, a former tax lawyer whose LinkedIn page says he now works as a senior consultant for the Starwood Capital Group, an international private investment firm.....The Jewish Chronicle’s ownership structure, in which several key figures remain anonymous.... Since 2020, the only shareholder and director was Robbie Gibb, a former Downing Street comms director. But he was not bankrolling the loss-making paper, which according to its latest accounts required a loan of £3.5 million. In March, the paper announced it would be becoming a charitable trust. Gibb recently resigned as director, replaced by the Labour peer Lord Austin, Jonathan Kandel, a prominent lawyer, and Joseph Dweck, a senior rabbi. The shareholding was split up, too. But the people ultimately responsible for The JC’s debts remain unknown. Andre🚐 22:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

We should be concerned when sources say it is a concern. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This is, again, a misread of what it means by "publisher," it means the outlet, not the ownership of the outlet; ownership isn't mentioned. If you find an article that was published in the Jewish Chronicle, that was published by the Jewish Chronicle, and it will be reputable or not based on what we decide here, but nowhere is that extended to mean the reliability of the shareholders of the company. Andre🚐 22:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

No you don't understand publisher. The publication is the Jewish Chronicle, either it has a separate publisher or it does not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

As I just said, it is called "Jewish Chronicle Media Ltd." The fact that we don't know all the shareholders is not relevant. I think we're going around in circles so let's agree to disagree. Andre🚐 22:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The ownership does matter. It has to matter to the publisher. But more specifically, it matters to the sources that have taken issue with it. As Jayen already pointed out, this problem was not identified by Wikipedians, it was identified by sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources also say, Not all of the contributors have resigned. “For me, this incident is not reason enough to give up on a paper that’s been a powerful and essential voice for our Jewish community for 180 years,” says Naomi Greenaway, deputy editor of the Telegraph Magazine and Jewish Chronicle columnist. “But I have a lot of respect for the journalists who have resigned, and I’m glad it’s triggered The Jewish Chronicle to interrogate their editing processes. The shame is that for a paper that does give a platform to those on all sides of the political spectrum, these resignations will ironically mean it loses that balance on the Left. “From my experience, they are a tiny team, juggling a huge amount on a shoestring budget and generally the calibre of content punches way above what would be expected from their resources. But they’ve dropped the ball and they know they have massive lessons to learn from it.”....“The @JewishChron has cut all ties with the freelancer in question and his work has now been removed from our website. Readers can be assured that stronger internal procedures are being implemented. Andre🚐 22:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you are responding to. That does not address publisher. It also continues a vagueness, apparently she, an editor, has no idea what went on and what the fixes are or what lessons are learned. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The question at hand is whether the publisher, Jewish Chronicle Media Ltd, and its associated publication, have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That quote substantiates that in fact, its reputation may still be intact, though that is for editors here to determine. As to whether the company contains, among the named individuals, some anonymous individuals AFAIK is not something discussed anywhere in wiki-policy. Andre🚐 22:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

No. It does not. She is not a reliable source for her own employer in such a matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It had a reputation for fact-checking, up until circa 2009, when Pollard took over, it was bankrupted by libel cases, and then taken over. The JC of today is no longer the JC of yester-century, but the shell of a long-cherished brand, and the point of this RFC is to make that very distinction in terms of source quality. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Has any RS reported it was bankrupted by its four libel cases or was this speculation? Lot of newspapers suffered financially in the same period, as lots of the RS commentary on this case notes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

That's indeed a damning quote, but note his resignation is not due to reliability issues just editorial political position: “To be frank, I became unhappy with the JC’s political drift. Whilst it was doing new and important stuff on extremism, I felt too often it glossed over the fragmentation of Israeli society, which is accelerating and which really matters to the Jewish community here and should matter everywhere. It’s a very big and developing story.” BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The anonymous consortium member quoted here a few months ago – who said some remarkably similar things to what Ware has now been saying on the record to The Times – also declared the JC's editor was "behaving like a political activist, not a journalist", especially in social media, and that coverage of Israel had become a case of "my country, right or wrong".

This may or may not have been a different member of the consortium – after all, the sources are saying several of its members eventually became uneasy about their involvement – but it is clear that even within the consortium that was ostensibly owning and running the JC, concerns arose whether the JC was about propaganda or journalism.

John Woodcock, Baron Walney, another consortium member, also confirmed to The Times that he has had no involvement whatsoever in any oversight structures for the JC. Andreas JN466 16:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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

• Comment:A few days ago we seemed to be converging on a general consensus (unreliable on certain subjects after a certain date). However, since then the following editors User:xDanielx, User:The Kip, User:Alaexis, User:Fortunatesons have given the JC a clean bill of health. Their arguments are based on one or more of the following opinions: the JC has a long standing service to a minority (what possible relevance is that to post 2010/15 reliability?), unknown ownership and funding isn't as bad as state funding (yet like the BBC, Al-Jazeera claims to be independent and is only partially funded by it's government), the IPSO rulings don't look that bad did you read the bizarre examples of failed ones? , by focussing on the latest scandal, and ignoring the following lawsuits and rulings.
• falsely accusing a peace activist for harbouring suicide bombers
• disclosing details a family members without good reason
• reporting false links to terrorist activity
• making untrue allegations about their own regulator, the IPSO. Note in another case the IPSO considered the JCs conduct during their investigation “unacceptable”.
• falsely accusing a councillor of a) antisemitic comments, b) launching a vicious protest & c) interfering with a vote
• falsely accusing someone of a conspiracy to intimidate, threaten or harass Jewish activists in a meeting, when he wasn't even present.
• falsely accusing a country of repeatedly vowing to wipe Jews off the face of the earth
• falsely accusing a Rabbi of holocaust denial when they clearly knew in advance this wasn't true.

I would be interested to hear a response, particularly if they think these legal cases aren't that bad? Andromedean (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked into all of these claims, some seem like fair concerns, but a few points -

• Some it just seems like matters of opinion, like Suarez who takes issue with being called a "Israel hate author" (other sources have made similar claims), or claims about antisemitic comments. At best they show JC is WP:BIASED.
• Publishing info about family members doesn't relate to reliability.
• reporting false links to terrorist activity doesn't seem accurate, they stated that Interpal was listed by the US as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, which is factually accurate (albeit unbalanced without mentioning Interpal's denial).

We have to keep in mind that JC voluntarily submits to IPSO regulation, which provides a highly accessible venue for complaints, giving them leverage to extract apologies or small payouts. Other outlets like The Guardian opt out of IPSO regulation, so claims about libel have to go to real court, which is much less accessible and which involves a much stricter legal standard of libel.

JC also receives more scrutiny than most sources due to its controversial positions. If AP or Reuters made a mistake like writing banned rather than rejected, in an otherwise uncontroversial report, we'd never hear about it because noone would care. I'm not convinced that JC makes more factual errors than most news outlets. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

However, since then the following editors...The Kip...have given the JC a clean bill of health.

I voted virtually the exact same way as ActivelyDisinterested, Bobfrombrockley, Bluethricecreamman, LokiTheLiar, and Springee (and not far off from Selfstudier and Jayen466), which was that it was reliable up to a certain point (hence why full-scale deprecation would be a problem) and not so reliable afterwards, especially for ARBPIA. That is very clearly not option 1 akin to the others listed. What in the world do you mean by I've "given it a clean bill of health??" The Kip ^(contribs) 03:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Andromedean, forgot to ping in initial response. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, not option 1 across the board for you, but that brings me back to how difficult it will be for an assessor to make a judgement with all the exceptions to this and that. I also believe that Option 2 could be used with almost any publication on non-political issues. However, it's mainly geopolitics and national politics which dominates references to the JC, and is the motivation behind many of the other controversies. Typically editors are advised to find other sources where they exist in such cases. Andromedean (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Andromedean, I primarily responded to the latest Eylon Perry debacle and the IPSO rulings since these were the main arguments in the Background section. I'll review the links you've shared and respond here (and possibly amend my !vote). Alaexis_¿question? 07:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Andromedean, I've looked at the lawsuits and rulings section of the wikipedia article. First of all, as you probably know England has rather peculiar laws on defamation which put the burden of proof on the defendant and (imho) have been abused by a lot of unsavoury characters. Whatever you think about the merits of this law, this means that the same article would not necessarily be considered libelous if it were published elsewhere where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

Second, most of the section and most of your examples have to do with IPSO rulings which is again, the system working as it should resulting in the newspaper removing content (amongst other remedies). I agree that they published a number of articles that turned out to be incorrect but since they took appropriate measures following the decision of the regulator, I don't think we need to downgrade them. This definitely confirms their bias, but that's hardly news for anyone here.

Regarding some of the specific examples you've mentioned.

• Publishing details of the family members of the defendant without valid justification has no bearing on the reliability.
• falsely accusing a country of repeatedly vowing to wipe Jews off the face of the earth - it was in an opinion column which we would not use for statements of fact per WP:RSEDITORIAL
• reporting false links to terrorist activity - if you're referring to Interpal then it's not obviously false. In spite of the court ruling in the UK this organisation seems to be still designated as a terrorist organisation by the US, Australia and Canada.

Alaexis_¿question? 09:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• This finding by Independent Press Standards Organisation is concerning: "Therefore, at the time of publication, the allegations against the complainant remained unproven. By reporting these allegations as fact, rather than identifying them as unproven claims made by multiple sources, the [Jewish Chronicle] articles failed to distinguish between comment, conjecture, and fact". There are about 12 other complaints of inaccuracy in which IPSO ruled against JC.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Fabrications and Resignations: A Crisis at Britain’s Jewish Chronicle The NYT has joined in the reporting round. Selfstudier (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. From the NYT article: "To Israeli national security journalists, the reports bore the hallmarks of a disinformation campaign by sources in the Israeli government. Such stories, one said, are often placed in friendly publications outside Israel because their reporters and editors are less likely to subject them to intense vetting." (My emphases.)

The NYT report also mentions that the fabrications stayed up even after the Israeli Defense Forces had debunked them. They were only retracted after columnists quit. Andreas JN466 09:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• If we're going to keep pigeonholing publications into a single category, then I think we need to make space for "Biased but doesn't have a history of making things up, so still reliable within the limits of WP:RSBIASED" and possibly "Unfortunate incident". For example, Jayson Blair fabricated a lot of articles at The New York Times, and yet it's still RSP "green". One might wonder why a mass retraction at a general-audience newspaper resulted in no change, but a seemingly similar mass retraction at a Jewish newspaper is treated differently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  Seconded Andre🚐 22:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  The difference lies in the sensational nature of the fabrications and their political context, the fact that a very obviously doctored résumé was accepted, the paper's opaque ownership, the wholly inadequate, non-transparent response of the editor to the affair, the walkouts of major, longstanding contributors, and the unanimous verdict of the mainstream press that journalistic standards at the Jewish Chronicle have severely declined. Andreas JN466 23:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would say that all sources are biased, although some more intensely so. Israel/Palestine sources are particularly susceptible to bias, it seems, meaning there is really no perfect source on the conflict. There has been a problem with discussions on this noticeboard of editors !voting for unreliability for sources perceived as pro-Israel (Jerusalem Post, JC) and as anti-Israel (al-Jazeera) simply because of bias ("they're Zionists" or "they're pro-Hamas"). We really need to keep bias out of the conversation. (The best sources might be those perceived as biased against them by both sides...) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  It is your claim that appears false. They are not the same. (Nor does it make sense to believe each reputation of each publication would be exactly the same, no matter what.) Here, the JC has seemingly failed in multiple ways, and it is both the scandal which brought some of it to light, and it is their failures and continuing failures in how they have handled it which makes them doubted across RS (see also, lie by omission). They have failed to even do the job of deeply reporting the matter, and not disciplining editors. For example, among other things this scandal has highlighted that the new post-almost-closure editor is a novelist (see generally, fiction), and it gets worse from there for the JC's seeming reputation. Also, can anyone even begin to draw a comparison, which does not even consider something like ability/resource to do a job.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm unsure if this case has been mentioned. In 2014 the JC claimed that a PSC Director, had said that demonstrations against the Gaza conflict “had been used by people to ‘peddle hatred and intolerance’ towards Jews”. The Chronicle published the following correction: “Ms Colborne had not said that. In fact, what she had said was: “The Palestine Solidarity Campaign opposes all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, and racism directed against Palestinians whether living in the West Bank and Jerusalem, or as citizens of Israel.”” Therefore, there are five publicised pre-2015 cases against the JC, in 1968, 2009, 2012 and two in 2014. Andromedean (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Not the most reliable of opinion pieces, still tho "Does the Jewish Chronicle really matter, though? Nobody reads it anymore – it circulates just under 16,000 print copies, distributing around half of them for free – hence its near-death experience in 2020." Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Rivkah Brown is a commissioning editor and reporter for Novara Media, which for those familiar would indicate her levels of reliaiblity and bias. She gives Pollard period (2008+) for increasingly extreme bias ("fanatical cheerleader"), Wallis Simon period (2021+) for unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

In March 2022, Steven Barnett a Professor of communications at the University of Westminster and a member of the British Journalism Review editorial board, wrote scathingly about the quality of the JCs journalism and the inability or unwillingness of the IPSO to effectively regulate it. Andromedean (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Barnett would support 2018 as turning point. Beware though of JC as collateral damage in opinion pieces attacking IPSO, which is one of Barnett's main causes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't find any explicit mention of him agreeing to 2018 as being a 'turning point'. However, he did say "Since 2018, it has been found by IPSO’s complaints committee – which is notoriously reluctant to find fault with member publications – to have breached the Editors’ Code 33 times. Even worse, over the same period it has admitted and paid damages for no fewer than four serious libels."

Andromedean (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

look at the context of that quote: “Over the last few years, for whatever reason, the JC appears to have suffered a catastrophic failure of journalistic standards which has short-changed its readers, damaged the victims of its serial inaccuracies, and left its reputation in tatters... The JC’s charge sheet is long and depressing. Since 2018, it has been found…” In other words: It HAD a good reputation; that reputation is in tatters after a series of failures over the last few years; the charge sheet starts in 2018. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

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

Survey (Discogs images)

• Yes. Lets think this thru: works are their own refs, and the photos are accurate representations of the actual work to a 99.9% level of confidence. The label text is not user-generated absent an elaborate hoax, so who uploaded it is immaterial. It is as impossible to mislabel these photos as it is for a movie title screen etc (you can't pass off the label of record X as being the label of record Y). The alternative is continue our current practice: assume the article editor has not made a mistake, and to verify the reader has to get a copy on eBay or whatever. This is not better.
• Yes. How would anyone ever know that an editor is using Discogs vs. a copy of the album that they own? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Primary sources are reliable about themselves and users can include courtesy links for the aid of verification. This is true in all case. As to Discog it's not deprecated, it's unreliable as it's user generated. The primary images it hosts don't make it anymore or less unreliable. This is the same as with the primary documents that ancestry/com hosts, they are reliable in a primary way even if the rest of ancestry/com isn't reliable. None of this changes anything, the references aren't to Discog they are to the primary object (the album in this case), any link to an image on Discog is just an aid for verification purposes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I discussed this below. Herostratus (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

My points still stand, see my response below. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear I'm not bold voting in this RFC as Discog is not deprecated or prohibited, it's unreliable as it's WP:UGC. Nothing in this RFC will change that, and nothing about it being unreliable prohibits the use of a courtesy link to an image of a primary object. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• The source is the physical record itself, so Discogs only has to accurately convey the contents of the records. This isn't something it's guaranteed to do, since anyone can upload a photo claiming to be of the record. I agree with ActivelyDisinterested that Discogs should only be treated as an aid for verification purposes, not as a guaranteed accurate representation of a work. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I discussed this below. "not as a guaranteed accurate representation of a work" just isn't so, if one thinks it thru. Herostratus (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can also upload a scan claiming to be of a book, or upload a picture claiming to be of the subject of the article, and yet that is widely done too. Cortador (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That's why in-practice, it's fine to cite it. It's just that a physical copy would take precedence. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. As of now, we rely on some editor just using the information from a copy of the album they presumably have at hand. I support this provided this is limited to actual scans.
• Is that even making an exception? If you find a photo of an album on ebay, amazon, or Jeff's Music Blog, we don't need consensus that those are reliable sources to use it, right? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  This point was repeatedly raised in the discussion prior to this RFC, see WT:RSP#Could we talk some horse sense re Discogs?. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, but as a URL within Template:Cite AV media. A point that nobody here has mentioned is that the physical music release is its own reliable source, just like a book. It has a catalog number, a title, a publisher, a date. If we add a URL pointing to a scan of the same material, it would be a welcome convenience, assisting others with verifiability. The likelihood of someone uploading a false scan is very low; we can address such instances as they arise by comparing to other scans of the same release. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• No. Seems like I'm in the minority, but it's unnecessary and a bad precedent. I use Discogs every day--it's riddled with errors. Misspellings, typos, track listing misorder, bad translations, etc.--thousands of mistakes across the site, I imagine. It's appropriate only as an EL. As mentioned above, the album itself is the source; we don't need an inline citation to "help with verifiability". If an editor really wants an image for an inline citation, they can take the time to find one from a source without Discogs' problems. I'm also not sure that it's necessary to turn something that takes 3 seconds (scrolling to the EL, Googling outright) in to something that takes 1 second. And Discogs as an inline citation is constantly abused, with editors using it for exact release dates, genres, album sequential number, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Misspellings, typos, track listing misorder, bad translations are all relevant to text hosted on the site, not the text legible in images of release packaging. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. Let's not compound the issue by using such a flawed site for an inline citation when there are much better options. Or again, simply cite the liner notes. Caro7200 (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  What "better options" are there, and what makes their scans preferable? Cortador (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Right, if the Discogs photo has the wrong songwriter or whatever, the actual record label is going to have the same error.Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  For what purpose? Again, it's totally unnecessary to use an image to "verify" or "prove" any credits, at all. Cite the liner notes and use Discogs as an EL. Given Discogs' thousands of UG errors and how it's misused as an inline citation, take the second to scroll to the bottom of the article page. No burden whatsoever. Caro7200 (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Editors might easily add an edit summary such as "this discogs photo matches the record in my own collection". If the photo is uploaded to Wiki or Commons, that same explanation would also be useful. The textual contents of sleeve notes / liner notes are already permitted as a valid source for album credits, this just adds secondary validation. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - The images only. The images are just an easily accessed record of the primary source, which is usable as a citation for itself. There should be nothing wrong with this, just be careful to keep it limited ONLY to direct images of the primary source itself, not to any user generated content. User uploaded primary sources should be fine as primary sources. Fieari (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
• No If somethings need to be sourced to an image uploaded to an unreliable UGC website then it very likely isn't worthy of inclusion. I don't even understand what exactly is being proposed here, using images of an album to determine who wrote it...? If no reliable sources that Johnny Doe wrote some album then we won't write that Johnny Doe wrote it. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Even RS sources don't always give all the information on a label or don't always accurately report it. I'm not sure why any discogs editor would ever want to falsify what's printed on a label e.g. by photoshopping it. Yes, a label image would be a primary source, but it seems it would still be very reliable. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, the rule that "works of art are their own reference" is actually horrible and way way outside our usual comfort zone. For obscure works especially we are effectively saying "OK editor, we'll take your word for it". That's not a whole lot better than "something I saw on the internet" as also a usable source.

But if we didn't -- if we required published reliable secondary sources for material on works of art as we do for most other articles -- our coverage of works of art would be very very much less that we do have. Very few movie and book articles would have Plot sections or would have short incomplete ones, which would leave the reader blind. In fact, most of our movie and many of our book and record articles would have to be destroyed or stubbed -- they don't have any secondary sources. You can't get a cast list etc for most movies, really you can't get anything, if you're sticking to secondary sources. Very few album articles would have track listings. And so on.

It's a problem and its a big problem. Why pretend otherwise. But what else can we do? Cut our coverage of films and books and novels by 75+%? Not going to happen.

I mean c'mon, a reader saying "wait, I thought that song was written by Smith not Jones" is not going to hunt down a copy of the actual record (which for many would be quite difficult or expensive) to verify that. Get real. For a lot of these records -- 78's and records from 1930 etc -- there is, basically, no way for the reader to verify the text. Unless they to go to Discogs or someplace like that -- which I guess they shouldn't -- they'll have to be like "oh well, I'll never know I guess".

Here's one method we could employ to cut that back some. Why would we not want to do that. Herostratus (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need to know what is on the label? If you cannot find a reliable source to cover who wrote/performed it then the work is almost certainly not notable unless it is notable for something non-typical. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Why not allow an editor to use this resource to reference this easily sourced information? Yes, the information could be sourced elsewhere if the target is notable, but why disallow something that makes life easier for editors, and ALSO... and this is more important... make things easier for someone who wants to USE the reference. References aren't a game we play here at wikipedia, there's a purpose to citations and referencing everything. They are to provide the references to users who want to use the information themselves. Referencing the album art for information about itself can be USEFUL to users, and this website has them online for easy viewing. Fieari (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Then it can be an external link. I still don't see any album being notable enough for an article but not notable enough to have basic information on unable to be sourced. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It is able to be sourced—in the liner notes of the album. Compare to referring to the copyright page on a scanned book to source information about publication. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• No. You don't need an exception (nor should we give one), you just need to treat the pictures as authentic, we have a very low (almost non-existent) standard for treating images as authentic, something along the lines of the 'good faith uploader reasonably believed it was a picture of the thing and so does the good faith editor'. But the citation then is not and never should be to the picture, it is to the label/record/album/cover itself. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Discogs images)

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

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

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

NB: if an editor provides a proximate link to a Discogs photo -- attached directly to a line of data-- just as a courtesy, whether as a bare URL or using a citation template, it will be indistinguishable from a ref. Other editors will see them as refs, and possibly tag them for {{better reference}}, but far more probably delete them, and perhaps the material also as being now unref'd while they're at it I believe we can count on this. (it still wouldn't be unreffed, but it might seem so to the casual editor not knowing the rule for works). And in fact since using Discogs as a ref is clearly prohibited at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, you might be in for a scolding. So I wouldn't do it.

As I said, an external link at the bottom of the article is extra work for the user and just more mediocre. Why do that. But that is currently the only use allowed by Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

Re "anyone can upload a photo claiming to be of the record" and "[is not necessarily] a guaranteed accurate representation of a work", that just isn't true. A photo of the label for "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" can't actually be a photo of the label for "Love Me Do". It's flat impossible. Of course, as anywhere in the 'pedia, we are indeed subject to be fooled by an elaborate hoax using photoshop skills. But we assume no elaborate hoaxes absent some indication of such, and to do so regularly would be kind of paranoid... And for instance photos (putatively) taken and uploaded without modification by Wikipedia editors are far likelier to to hoaxes or just wrong and for good or ill we accept those. I guess we would accept a photo of a record label taken by an editor to be shown in an article to be sufficiently reliable, why can't she upload to Discogs and use it as a ref.

Re "The primary images it hosts don't make it anymore or less unreliable. This is the same as with the primary documents that ancestry/com hosts". I did not know that birth certificates or whatever that Ancestry hosts are considered unreliable, that is a different issue -- I suppose the birth ertificates for two different Joe Smiths might be indistinguishable etc. This doesn't apply to the matter at hand.

Vetting reliable sources is tricky if you drill down. Most sources are reliable for some things, and not others. But if the Daily Unreliable were to host material that -- by some magic -- we were certain was true to 99.99% confidence, yeah we could use it I'd think. The label photos are 99.99% sure of being accurate, n'est-ce pas?

Sure our rules have to be blunt instruments ("Do not use the Daily Unreliable, period"), we can't get overly nuanced. but if it is possible to make a rule less blunt by logical proof of an reasonably broad exception, and an editor has bothered to do it, it would be mediocre to just be like "enh whatever nah". Herostratus (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

How will this RFC change this in anyway? Discog will still be an unreliable source in general, so anyone blindly following the colour applied by a script will still see the same colour. I would suggest making sure the title of the reference is something like "Courtesy link to image of the album reverse showing the song listing". If you add a bare url it may get reverted, the same happens to edits without summaries, if other editors don't know why you're doing something they might revert you in mistake. Clearly explaining goes a long way to mitigate that.

Nothing at RSP "prohibits" the use of Discog, the specific wording is The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. That is routine wording, all user generated content is considered generally unreliable.

It's prohibited for refs I believe. I want it usable for refs. Your quote basically makes the argument "We can't use any Discogs material for refs, because we don't use any Discogs material for refs" which is circular. Look me in the eye and tell me that you truly believe that these photos are not accurate to a sufficient level of confidence for a ref. You can't because they are. How can that not matter. Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not prohibited, and if you think my argument bis circular you have misunderstood it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

My point about ancestry/com is that it is unreliable, but that the primary documents it hosts are considered reliable (rather than the other way round). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

As to hoaxes Discog is as likely to be hoaxed as any other place that are user edited, Wikipedia included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hoaxing the Wikipedia can have ideological advantage in many places. Making a hoax record label is pointless and also requires some photoshop skill. There probably are hoaxed images on Discogs (altho their hivemind would catch lots of them eventually you'd think). However, surely it is way less than one in a thousand. A 99.9+% confidence is way more than sufficient for a ref. Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Most of the hoaxes on Wikipedia are not ideological, see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. The main reason people create hoaxes is basic trolling. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Summing up, to this point anyway

So, seems to have died down a bit. So let's see.

So, my goal here was to add text to the effect that "Except that images of record labels and jackets are OK" at the Discogs entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. That page is for "sources that have been repeatedly raised for discussion are listed here... it is a summarization of discussions about the listed sources" to avoid having to go over some sources over and over. Discogs is rated as "Generally Unreliable" With the circle-slash "prohibited" icon. This represent the consensus of the various previous discussions, and is mainly used for answering editors who aren't sure, but could also be used to quell pointless local discussions on the matter. And that is fine. (I was told that here rather than there is place to have this discussion).

So, let's see -- by headcount, its 7-4 in favor of "yes" (most people from the other discussion voted here, but one didn't, and was a "yes" so 8-4 Yes). As to strength of argument, well, not for me to say, but... I didn't find the "no" ones very convincing, to say the least. You can't pass off a photo of record X's label as being record Y, no matter how many people don't get that, you still can't. The photos themselves are technically user created, but I mean so is "I have the album right here, take my word for it man" and that's less reliable and the reader sometimes can't check it at all without unreasonable effort. "We can't use Discogs at all because we don't use Discogs at all" is not a strong argument; "We don't use Discogs at all and that works OK so let's keep doing that" is better, but pretty weak IMO... could be used against any change anywhere... "works OK" is arguable and "works better" is a worthwhile goal. But that's just me, and I'm biased, so make your own conclusion about strength of argument.

Anyway, for the purposes of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, a "a summarization of discussions about the listed sources" has to include this thread, and with more weight than something from say 15 years ago. So it's most probably not true that a summarization of discussion can be said to reveal a consensus against Discogs label photos as refs, anymore. More the opposite. (If there are a number of fairly recent, well- populated, and decisive discussions that might be different -- but since label photos as a separate thing were discussed little or not at all (I'll betcha), most probably not even then.)

And the nutshell at that page does say "Consensus can change...". So...

Make sense? I will talk to the Perennial Sources people, OK? They will probably agree to the change.

But here is the thing. So far we are talking about if a fact (is there consensus) was or was not established.

But... for rules its different. At WP:USERGENERATED (part of WP:RS, which is technically just a guideline but has the weight of a strong rule) it says "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are... Discogs...". Well is 8-4 and (if you think so) weight of argument enough to change a rule? Mnmh... well the at WP:RS it's just one example. Removing it doesn't change any rule, at all. And dollars to donuts that the people writing that list of examples gave zero thought to Discogs label photos specifically, and we're not "originalists" bound to exact text.

So yeah I'd say changing that text (most probably just removing it, since its only listing some examples, and less confusing) would be appropriate.

But suppose we would have to have a discussion over at RS tho. We'll see. Herostratus (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

As someone involved in the RFC I would suggest leaving it to whoever closes the discussion.

As to UGC as I said above this would change nothing, at best it would add a sentence at RSP that links to images can be used because if other pre-existing policy considerations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Car brochures

Are car brochures and spec sheets published by the automaker themselves reliable sources, or are they primary sources and should generally be avoided? Note that they often tend to be some of the only information for options, trims and packages, especially if a car hasn't had a lot of press coverage. Cutlass^Ciera 17:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Although secondary sources are preferred, primary sources can still be used. Spec sheets and such would be reliable sources, as long as they are for facts not the interpretation of those facts. Also as it's the car manufacturer talking about their own products you may want to be careful with any exceptional claims, they may include promotional language that wouldn't be appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cutlass: I think WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is a big consideration here:

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

If it's something subjective on a spectrum that manufacturers have a vested interest to exaggerate such as gas mileage, electric range, or top speed, the claim should probably be attributed to the manufacturer. If it's something straightforward and objective such as tire size or the number of seats for example, that's probably fine to use in wikivoice. Left guide (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Not even sure how you would cite a brochure. Perhaps another option is to link the instruction manual (for say a car model) on the further reading section. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

There are several big issues with brochures, at least in the U.S They sometimes show options and colors that weren't actually available, they aren't always forthcoming about what combinations of options or colors could be ordered, they are not conclusive evidence that an option or color didn't exist, and they may show dealer-installed equipment without being entirely forthcoming about it. I was heavily involved in the SCCA Solo community in the past, where it's mandatory for competitors in the Street (formerly Stock) classes to use a car with a combination of options available for purchase new from a dealer, i.e., if the carmaker always bundled the most powerful engine with the heavy power seats and T-tops, sorry, you gotta run the power seats and T-tops if you want the big engine. Over the years, this has led to some deep dives into what dealers could actually order, and these fact-finding expeditions have uncovered some notable instances where brochures were inaccurate—and keep in mind, these investigations tend to take place only if the subject vehicle is a potential "ringer" in an autocross, which is not true of the vast majority of new vehicles. Bottom line: I would explicitly cite any information from a brochure in the article text, not just in a footnote, and I would heavily disclaimer anything highly detailed, such as color or option combinations. Carguychris (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, those are RS. I agree with caveats mentioned by others that performance specs are dependent on conditions tested in, and they have a vested interest so the phrasing of descriptions may be promotional. I would not ding them on flaws in details of options since those might be changed by production afterwards and that seems a level of detail that WP or anywhere else should not go to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

National Football Teams

I noticed this being used in a featured list, I was going to remove it because it is just some random person's website: [18] and is obviously not within the definition of a RS; however, this source is used on more than 8,000 pages [19] which leads me wondering what on earth to do about it.

It also used in BLPs for information beyond just soccer itself which is concerning. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

From the FAQ "Your criteria are dumb and you should include Catalonia, Jan Mayen and Puntland right away. Sorry, my site.", yes it looks like a blog, not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems just a person's pet project. No evidence of any reliabilty. Yes some of it will be right, but we don't know what. Not a reliable source. Canterbury Tail talk 17:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I've found another one: [20]

I'm aware these are not reliable, I'm more wondering how to deal with it. The amount of pages citing National Football Teams has actually gone up whilst this thread has been here. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Could potentially be deprecated or added to the spam blacklist if it's a massive issue. Get a few examples of a few of the most problematic uses, start an RFC, and if it it's successful it could be added like WP:HEALTHLINE. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep, if it is being overused, and is just "some bloke on the internet" it may need depreciation, but at the very minimum any content sourced to it should, be removed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

As an example see the Universe Guide RFC about a similar issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess I'll compile the worst examples (BLPs) and include them here in preparation. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It is used in featured lists [21]

It is used in many BLPs, mostly for soccer statistics but also for some BLP info such as height, date of birth, and place of birth. [22] [23] [24]

There is even a template for it which allows and encourages one to cite it: Template:NFT player. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• I would suggest judging by evidence of is it used elsewhere than WP as reliable, and what secondary sources say about it. Whether one can find some errors in apparently 8,000-plus uses would only show it as 0.01% incorrect which is not bad - and that it has 8,000 uses in WP indicates to me that it has substantial standing here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  I see no evidence of WP:USEBYOTHERS with a cursory search for the site's address. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the reliability of Ground News?

In case you do not know, Ground News is a news aggregator that puts individual news stories on a political spectrum, based on how left- or right- or center leaning they believe the story is. Could this potentially be used when discussing the reliability of other sources? Or is it something like MBFC/NewsGuard and the like that without further context they should not be used? Awesome Aasim 04:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The Ground News factuality score is an assessment of the reporting practices of a news publication. The score is based on the average rating of two rating systems: Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias Fact Check. (about page). So Ground News is about as usable as MBFC because they are MBFC (and WP:ADFONTES). Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Just another MBFC or AdFM (just someone's opinion), and much more importantly political leaning has absolutely nothing to do with reliability.

There is no valid answer to "Who watches the Watchmen?" Who checks the biases and political leanings of MBFC, AdFM, Ground News, or similar sites? Anyone set to watch the Watchmen becomes a Watchman. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I wonder if it is possible that no possible combination of news rating systems can be used at all to discuss the reliability of sources. That or maybe all news content rating systems are inherently unreliable on their own, unless if they base their information from reliable sources such as scholarly journals and the like. However, if all the major news content rating systems claim that a source is reliable or not reliable, then it probably can be raised as an argument against using a source. Like for something like InfoWars, where NewsGuard, MBFC, and Ad Fontes Media all claim is unreliable, and Wikipedia has deprecated and blacklisted here. Awesome Aasim 16:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Not really, these sites use their own measures for judging sources while Wikipedia has it's own. So the fact they come to a particular judgement isn't really useful, editors should instead look to the relevant policies and guidelines.

That's not to say that the consensus here might not end up being the same as theirs, but that it might be reached based on different criteria. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

And who wacthes the Wkipedians? It always makes me laugh that a revolving, nebulous panel of non-experts (us) collectively thinks we know better than professionals and journalists who devote their work (sometimes even getting paid!) to analyze and rank sources, while clearly partisan sources are accepted without a second's hesitation (although lip-service is paid to beware of "partisan sources"). I predict no end to the beard-stroking and silly gatekeeping. Amateurs, rise up! --Animalparty! (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Because that's how Wikipedia works. That reliable sources are required is made up, and how we judge them is made up. But those things are generally agreed upon by editors, so that's how it's done.

Paid professionals and journalists are no less biased than any editor, other than by being paid they have an additional area of bias. Also their views of a source tend to be very entrenched in their own socio-culture norms, at least Wikipedia editor have some diversity.

As to partisan sources you should read WP:RSBIAS, the "Beware 'partisan sources'!" point is not one of reliability but NPOV. As relying on those sources alone gives a lopsided presentation of details.

As to who watches the Wikipedians, other Wikipedians. It's not a real solution, as I said there isn't one, but again it is the way Wikipedia works. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Isn’t their categorization of sources just AI-driven and occasionally hallucination-filled? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell they're still only using Ad Fontes and MBFC for categorisation, this AI thing is just for people who don't want to read all of the articles. Alpha3031 (t • c) 22:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Channel NewsAsia

Channel NewsAsia, or CNA, is another major news outlet in Singapore. How should we consider its reliability?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

If a few might find this familiar, that's because I took it from a similar discussion over The Straits Times. However, CNA might be more reliable than The Straits Times, given it's been promoted as a "pan-Asia" outlet, and isn't as afraid to give thinly-veiled criticisms of the Singapore government such as its recent analysis of POFMA (Singapore's fake news law).--ZKang123 (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is this an RfC? Has this source been challenged before, have editors expressed legitimate concerns?

The only thing I can see is that it has a pro-government bias according to the criticism section of it's article, but that is not an issue of reliability. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems premature to have this discussion. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what the RFC is asking. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Qobuz for music credits

I am reviewing Wrap Me Up (Jimmy Fallon and Meghan Trainor song) for Good Article, and it uses Qobuz to source song credits. On the Qobuz website, I can see a link to "Improve album information" where users can submit requests for changes. I can't see any previous discussion here. What is the reliability for sourcing this information? Thanks in advance. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Being able to request changes is a good thing, as it shows they are open to corrections. It would only be a problem if you could create an account and chnage the details yourself (see WP:User generated content).

They are a commercial company, and this would fall under the area of what they do, so I would expect them to be reliable for these details. They also have a magazine which should probably be discussed separately if it's necessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

As a music store, I expect they take the official credits from the label in the vast majority of cases and the "Improve album information" button is only there to correct glaring errors. Pinguinn 🐧 21:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

CNET and ZDNET are now under Ziff Davis ownership. Should they get a new chance or continue be considered too unreliable?

Ziff Davis completed its acquisition of CNET and ZDNET on October 1, 2024 as seen in https://investor.ziffdavis.com/news-events/news/news-details/2024/Ziff-Davis-Completes-One-Acquisition-in-Q3-2024/default.aspx . Do we need to revisit their downgrades to unreliable status or not? Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Has there been a change in its editorial content in such a brief period? APK hi :-) (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, hasn't this been the case for a while? ZD owned both of those, just maybe not 100% of the stake. Andre🚐 07:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Ziff Davis started owning both on October 1, 2024. Both were owned by Red Ventures before then. Ziff Davis did sell ZDNet several years ago, and just bought it back. Jesse Viviano (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, ok, that's a long turn around, but CNET once owned ZDnet.[25][26] Anyway, I agree too soon to see if they will change. Andre🚐 07:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Wait and see, definitely. It is a possible reason why we might make that moment a cut-off point for some change to their status in the future, but Ziff Davis' ownership isn't so reputable as to instantly make a formerly disreputable source reputable all on its own. We should come back in a few months or so and see if coverage indicates changes that imply their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy has returned. --Aquillion (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The way I worded the WP:RFC at Red Ventures, ZDNet is now reliable and CNET is still unreliable because the unreliability only applied to websites controlled by Red Ventures for the period of time they were controlled by such. This is logically inconsistent since both were made WP:GUNREL for the same reason.

I would support revisiting the status of both of these tech sites without waiting.

Also, the main reason why both CNET and ZDNet were declared WP:GUNREL is because of Red Ventures' AI content generation engine. Now that they're no longer owned by Red Ventures, they should be considered WP:MREL as they don't have access to that resource. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd concur with Chess. Andre🚐 22:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I would still wait. Not enough time has passed for either site to gain a new reputation, and it is reputation that is important for reliability. For all we know, they could have replaced one AI content generator with another. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a good point. I initially wanted to wait for a similar reason. But I concur with Chess inasmuch as if there is a cutoff for reliability to revert to MREL we're observing it now in real time. ZD and CNet were somewhat or even relatively reliable before, especially for generic info, back when they were a part of a traditional media company and not part of a VC firm. But given the wording of the new RFC, this is the "new event" that triggers a new RFC - something that has changed. So I agree that we don't have to wait if there's a critical mass of people who want to have a new RFC. On the other hand, maybe that RFC might not result in a changed result and if we wait until starting it, there will be more data to tip the scales. So maybe for those who think that CNet and ZD are now MREL, strategically waiting might be a better decision to attract the most informed consensus and potentially meaningfully update things if that is indeed merited. Andre🚐 23:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Arab Humanities Journal

I'm doing the GA review for Shadia Abu Ghazaleh, and came across this journal as one of the references there. Looking at its and its publisher's websites, I got the impression it may not be a serious journal, but there is a huge language and cultural gap here, so I thought I'd ask here in case someone can judge this better than me. I'll paste my original review comment below.

The article cites the Arab Humanities Journal, (al-Zaeem 2022) which I have some doubts about. Looking at the journal's website through Google Translate, the "International classification" section has a bunch of random logos like Academia.edu, ResearchGate, etc. The only journal indexer I can glean from these is "International Scientific Indexing", a Web of Science impersonator. The publisher's website also doesn't arouse much confidence. On the FAQ page, about half the questions are about all manner of fees they charge, and they have this strange English "about us" page. Do you have any information on the reliability of this journal?

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Any journal that advertise fake impact factors and indexing services is shit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems to charge contributors a fee for publishing their work, so looks like a predatory journal. It does have apparent editors with academic affiliations. Definitely not high quality, but might be worth checking the reputation of specific contributors as well? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the author of this particular article. No current academic affiliation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

numetalagenda.com

Hosted on DigitalOcean, and a product of LG Media Network, I can't quite place http://numetalagenda.com on one side of the line or the other. Can somebody look it over for me? Does being in a listicle on "The Nu Metal Agenda" qualify as reliable sourcing for genre? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, could you give the details as it might help? Certainly Holiday Kirk appears to have some credibility in the area, but the site doesn't offer much in details about itself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The qualification of "I Disappear" as a nu metal song is being sourced to a listicle, there. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I dislike listicles as sources but at least this one isn't just a plain list, as it contains a write up on each entry. It's by Holiday Kirk, who is the subject of this Vice article[27], so it may have some credibility.

I've left notification at WikiProject Music asking if anyone knows more about the site[28]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep an eye, there, too! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold that against the website. It's pretty common, even among reliable sources, to over-apply genre in the era of its mainstream popularity. Every other heavy rock song would occasionally get called nu metal in the early 2000s. Same goes for every other rock song as grunge back in the 90s. Even beyond that, we shouldn't judge sources because we disagree with their assertions on subjective details anyways... Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You wouldn't hold... what... against the website? I'm not casting any aspersions; I'm here just asking if it's a reliable source. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you expand on your point? I haven't seen anyone saying it's not reliable just because they don't agree with it. I don't see that there has been any personal statements. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Digital Ocean is a hosting company, not a website. It's no different than a website touting themselves as being hosted by GoDaddy or similar companies. LG Media's main site seems to be Lambgoat, which is salted as an article but has a rough consensus that it's acceptable for basic claims. It also contains The Needle Drop, which was found to be a subject-matter expert for the purpose of reviews, but not facts, and the discussion took place before it joined LG Media. Overall it seems like the properties of LG Media are being left to their own devices with no overarching editorial direction, so it really would depend on the site. Can I ask what claims are being sourced to this listicle? Pinguinn 🐧 21:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's just the genre of "I Disappear" that's being sourced to a listicle, there. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, your personal disagreement with their assertion on a subjective matter like genre in itself is not enough to make a judgement call on this. You need better reasoning than that. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

your personal disagreement with Being otherwise unaware, please explain to me what specific disagreement I have with the source. You need better reasoning than that. What reasoning? Better than what? I don't know what you're talking about, here. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Based on your input here, and lacking any others here, or at the noticeboard previously mentioned, I've gone ahead and kept the source while adding a {{better source needed}} as well. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 11:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliablity of Myneta.info

Many Wikipedia articles on Indian politicians use this website as a source for information. The website is operated by ADR. Can I know if this is a reliable source for citing birth year, degree, and other details? GrabUp - Talk 05:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

ADR are a reputable organisation and would be considered a reliable source. The age, degree and some other details on Myneta are based on the written affidavits supplied by the candidates to the Election Commission of India[29]. It's therefore primary data and reliable per WP:ABOUTSELF. I guess candidates could lie in their affidavits, but I'm sure the Indian government have processes in place for such instances and Myneta allows readers to highlight corrections (they can't edit the details directly).

Myneta also contains details of past criminal offences and financial details. I would be hesitant to use them for these details, criminal convictions should only be included if they are reported by other secondary sources and financial details would likely always be WP:UNDUE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree! Thanks:) GrabUp - Talk 07:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The Blazing Musket for sport BLPs

So, this specific source was brought up at an AfD I've nominated, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett M. Johnson, along with a couple of other interviews and podcasts (not really sure why tbh), but this source seems to be used in a dozen or so other articles as well. It doesn't seem to support anything too critical, but I can't see any indication of an editorial review process or UBO. Is anyone familiar with this publication or the people who run it? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's use in Brett M. Johnson would be reliable in an WP:ABOUTSELF way, as it's an interview it's just Johnson talking about themself. In general If be cautious it's a substack site in disguise, and the about page doesn't seem to show any meaningful editorial practice[30]. I could be wrong as I can't find much information on it, and interviews are a bit of an exception as I said. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch

Over at Talk:Israeli apartheid, a number of editors have characterised Human Rights Watch (who has stated that Israel has committed apartheid against Palestians in the West Bank [31]) as a biased, partisan activist source. In my own experience this characterisation (which is also promulgated by partisan pro-Israel organisations like NGO Monitor) is not accurate, and HRW is for the most part one of the more objective observers of events in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

From my reading of things, the problem does not seem to be with the HRW itself, but rather that the HRW said that the actions of Israel constitute apartheid in its report. Honestly, I don't believe that there is an actual issue with the HRW. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC) (Text amended at 12:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Assume you meant does NOT seem? In which case I agree, I would treat HRW more or less as we do Amnesty. Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

...fudge. Yes, there is a missing not. Amending. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

They are a biased, partisan activist source. That's their job. So what? They are extremely biased against human rights abuses, have a very partisan position with respect to entities that abuse those rights, and activism is one of the tools they use to try to change things. They are a reliable source from Wikipedia's perspective, but usually require attribution. NGO Monitor on the other hand is an organization that employed deception by using one of their employees to infiltrate Wikipedia and make thousands of edits using multiple accounts. Much of the dogshit they walked over Wikipedia's carpets is probably still there. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

answer is probably to attribute statements to Human Rights Watch and consider statements by HRW to generally be WP:DUE if they are doing significant coverage of an incident. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

As noone has supplied any specific context, and the talk page mentions HRW many times, the general answer would be the are reliable but as an activist group may need intext attribution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

HRW do excellent research and are highly reliable for facts. They are an advocacy group, so partisan, so if they make controversial or disputed claims of fact they should be attributed. Their opinions (e.g. their opinions about whether Israel practises apartheid) are often noteworthy, especially if reported by secondary sources, and should be attributed as all opinions are. I can't see what content the specific current dispute refers to, but there are no uses in the current version of the article that are at all problematic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested and BobFromBrockley: For the context, the issue at the article Israeli apartheid is that Human Rights Watch, a 'western' organization, issued a report saying that Israel is engaged in apartheid and how we worded what HRW said.. For a quote: "This article is written like apartheid is a fact in Israel but this is obviously contested. Why is Wikipedia the only mainstream source in the west that says this like a fact?" --Super Goku V (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

As others have said it is reliable but intext attribution should be used. I'm unsure how 'western' comes into this as Israel is generally considered part of the west/first world/global north/developed countries (deleted as appropriate), if there are sources from outside that group they could be worth including but WP:DUE is about NPOV not reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what's being argued over in the talk page. I think HRW is definitely not the best source on the ICJ's expert opinion, especially if other reliable sources, or legal scholars quoted in reliable sources, say that HRW misinterpreted the ICJ's text. HRW is a good source for specific facts about human rights infringements they've investigated, but better sources can be found for big claims about the legal consensus on "apartheid". BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Like others have said, they're usable with attribution. I would characterize them as high-quality as far as advocacy orgs go, but they're still an advocacy org. To be clear, I don't think that they're actually biased on the subject of Israel in the way people claim. And they do have a strong reputation. But very few NGOs or advocacy orgs are usable unattributed for statements of fact; their purpose, by their very nature, is to advocate for specific ends. At that point the question is more WP:DUE; aside from HRW's own reputation lending the things they say some weight, the uses in that article mostly seem to have significant secondary coverage (which raises the question of what exactly the objection is - which uses of it, specifically, do people object to?) --Aquillion (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Pornography addiction

Is this a review?

Privara, Michal; Bob, Petr (2023). "Pornography Consumption and Cognitive-Affective Distress". Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease. 211 (8). Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health): 641–646. doi:10.1097/nmd.0000000000001669. ISSN 1539-736X.

Can it be used to trump DSM-5-TR, ICD-11, and the ASAM manual? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I've left a notification at WT:MEDRS[32] to hopefully generate some feedback -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source, so I didn't read it. But the link between dopamine and addiction is severely overrated. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

My bad: it's online. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

E.g. the source states "According to current DSM-5, dependence on online pornography does not represent a separate syndrome, but as some researchers and clinicians suggest, it can be included as a part of a hypersexual disorder"—that was a failed prediction about DSM-5-TR. The authors do not seem to be aware it was published a year before their article was published. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a (narrative) review. No, I wouldn't say it can be used to trump DSM-5-TR, ICD-11, and the ASAM manual. Bondegezou (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

About this article:

• WP:MEDPRI: The article type is a narrative review (though PMID 37505898 doesn't have it tagged that way), so it's a secondary source.
• WP:MEDSCI: The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease is okay. It's a middle-quintile journal – nothing special, but not so low as to be concerning.[33]
• WP:MEDASSESS: Reviews, including narrative reviews, are a good type of source.
• WP:MEDDATE: It is a recent publication. Although it was published recently, it has been cited positively by one other paper: PMID 39148923 (plus another paper by Privara and Bob): "Furthermore, research suggests that pornography can serve as a mechanism to alleviate excessive stress or regulate mood (Privara & Bob, 2023)...Alternatively, individuals might even consume pornography as a cathartic means to release accumulated tension, reduce excessive stress, or regulate mood (Privara & Bob, 2023; Rasmussen, 2016)."
• WP:MEDINVITRO: It does not rely on pre-clinical/non-human research.
• WP:MEDINDY: No reason to believe the study authors are hoping to become millionaires or otherwise have a conflict of interest.
• WP:MEDBIAS: There are no obvious indicators of bias, though that's always at least theoretically possible in a narrative review.

The bottom line is: It's probably an acceptable source to use. The key WP:RSCONTEXT question is: What material would you use it to support? "Stress, anxiety, and depression increase porn consumption"?  "Some people feel bad about their own porn consumption"?  I'm having trouble understanding what, exactly, in this article is supposed to contradict in the other high-quality sources. Is it just "they used the phrase sexual addiction, therefore sexual addiction is a Real™ Thing"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I wanted to know if it passes WP:MEDRS and yours is a good answer. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Bahamas Department of Meteorology history

Neely, Wayne (28 April 2011). The Great Bahamas Hurricane of 1866: The Story of One of the Greatest and Deadliest Hurricanes to Ever Impact the Bahamas. iUniverse. pp. 91–92. ISBN 978-1-4620-1104-9. Retrieved 11 October 2024.

I just want to ask if this could be reliable for describing the history of the BDM despite being from a vanity press? Tavantius (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There are two ways it could be reliable even though it comes from a vanity press. The first would be if the author is a recognised expert in the field, see WP:EXPERTSPS. The second would be if even though it is from vanity press other reliable sources cite it as a source, see WP:USEBYOTHERS.

The author appears to have published many works on hurricanes, but all appear to be self-published[34]. So WP:EXPERTSPS isn't appropriate.

Their blurb on Amazon says they are a lecturer on hurricanes, and have worked as a meteorologist in the Bahamas for the last 29 years. I can find one book using him as a reference[35], a National Geographic article[36], a couple of Washington Post articles[37][38], as well as local articles. This is middling when it comes to WP:USEBYOTHERS, as there doesn't appear to be many academic sources citing them.

It's possible that they are well regarded in the narrow field of historical hurricane's effecting the Bahamas, the narrower the field the harder it can be for none experts to know. So I've asked if anyone from WikiProject Tropical cyclones has any ideas[39]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally as a member of WPTC, I can't say that I have heard of Wayne Neely, however, a google for Wayne Neely + Bahamas brings up his LinkedIn page as well as various other sources which show that he works for the Bahamas Meteorological Department. As a result, I would state that Wayne is reliable when it comes to the history of the Bahamas Department of Meteorology, however, I would suggest that it is used as a foundational source and that other sources are found to describe the history of the BDM.Jason Rees (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks for the info. Tavantius (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Are primatologists WP:RS on the question of "what is language?"

There's a discussion over at Great ape language between myself, @Monkeywire, and @Andrevan as to whether or not primatologists working on great ape language experiments can be considered reliable when they say nonhuman great apes have used language. There is a strong consensus within linguistics that language is uniquely human and the papers on ape linguistics have not been received well by relevant subject matter experts.

My belief is that since primatologists are writing outside their field, and making extraordinary claims that are widely rejected by subject matter experts, that the opinion of primatologists as to what is and isn't a language shouldn't be weighted equally (or even really considered much) against linguists, cognitive psychologists, and neurolinguists. It is not possible to find a mainstream source in these fields that accepts the results of the experiments to teach great apes, as far as I'm aware, and the idea that language has been demonstrated in apes is decidedly WP:FRINGE within the community of experts.

I think the extraordinary claims coupled with the wide and easy to demonstrate rejection, mixed with people publishing on questions outside their field or training in journals which lack referees and reviewers qualified for questions of language make this a pretty clear WP:REDFLAG situation and including the claims of success as anything other than rejected is WP:PROFRINGE.

Just a couple of comments on the consensus which, sadly, don't meet WP:RS/AC's lofty standards:

Origin of Language – Summary:

* A firm minimum time horizon for the emergence of language at 100,000 years ago.

* Overwhelming consensus (among linguists, at least) that language is a particular evolutionary development specific to humans, Homo sapiens.

The Marvel of Language: Knowns, Unknowns, and Maybes - Susan McKay

Within the field of psychology, most of the ambitious claims about chimpanzee language are a thing of the past. Nim's trainer Herbert Terrace, as mentioned, turned from enthusiast to whistle-blower. David Premack, Sarah's trainer, does not claim that what she acquired is comparable to human language; he uses the symbol system as a tool to do chimpanzee cognitive psychology

The Language Instinct - Steven Pinker

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

One way of dealing with this is to note what different disciplinary groups say. So, keep saying that linguists, cognitive psychologists, and neurolinguists think language is unique to humans, but also note that primatologists do say non-human great apes have used language. It's fine for different disciplinary groups to have different answers to the same question, and we can reflect that in our articles. Bondegezou (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

but also note that primatologists do say non-human great apes have used language

It’s worth pointing out language is to an extent a concrete thing, like we can map language use in brain scans (one common criticism of ape language experiments is their refusal to test this, which would instantly quash doubt). It’s not exactly subject to field-specific interpretations and, even if it were, that’s not been an explicit argument made by primatologists (one specific small team excepting). I think a paper that argues that they’ve demonstrated language per a specific nonstandard definition is fine to mention, whereas anything making a blanket claim of language can’t be relied on. We can’t assume that primatologists are using a unique definition in the absence of statements to that effect, that’s… WP:SYNTH? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Overwhelming consensus is equivalent to saying that the vast majority of the relevant field holds that opinion, and therefore it meets WP:RS/AC. Requiring exact words is an overly literal interpretation; that said, if we wanted to apply it that way regardless, then we could simply cite the phrase "overwhelming consensus". If it wouldn't qualify as directly say[ing] that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view, then it also wouldn't count as a statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view (the first half of the same sentence), and RS/AC wouldn't apply at all.

For the specific issue, the key question is the nature of the body of research being analyzed. Biological expertise is certainly relevant to fields like linguistics; e.g. if someone does the neuroimaging studies that have been mentioned, then neuroscientists would be the relevant experts, and linguists would have no weight in that context. However, if the researchers' conclusions come from observation and interaction, using methods from the field of linguistics, doing the same type of experiments a linguist would do on a human (with the only contributions by primatology coming from specific adaptations to the context), then linguistics is the relevant field of expertise instead.

"What is language?" is too broad of a question to analyze on its own, since it can be addressed by research in multiple fields, so the answer will depend on the specific statement being discussed. As another example, given the "evolutionary development" framing in the above quote, evolutionary biologists may also be relevant (along with the article Origin of language). However, in this specific case, my impression is that primatology is not the relevant field of expertise for most possible article content on this topic (especially when compared to the other options available), meaning that the primatologists would have no weight, except perhaps to cite related statements in the article where their expertise is relevant. Sunrise (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Overwhelming consensus is equivalent to saying that the vast majority of the relevant field holds that opinion, and therefore it meets WP:RS/AC.

It was @SamuelRiv who disagreed with its inclusion or use as WP:RS/AC, stating

That's a conference speech, for one. Two, it's not a review, but a speech, without citations to articles. As you can see, the human definition of language is part of the premise, which is precisely the point.

(Note: it was still published in a peer-reviewed journal on the topic in question). WP:RS/AC sets a high bar, and here it's been met. I don't think it's reasonable to add further caveats to the sourcing requirements for WP:RS/AC, considering. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC is unambiguous that the text Warren was trying to add is not permissible. It's not about parsing exact words. There is consensus among linguists and other researchers that great ape language experiments have not produced evidence of a true capacity for language. Unless a source cites said consensus RS/AC prohibits this. Andre🚐 20:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my statement applies to consensus on the point that language is a particular evolutionary development specific to humans. The "not produced evidence of a true capacity" quote isn't necessarily the same thing (e.g. there could be some evidence which the consensus views as insufficient or of poor quality). That said, for the purposes of the article, a version with the wording changed to follow the language of the source more strictly would probably serve the same purpose. Sunrise (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That's what I mean, thanks for clarifying. Andre🚐 00:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

No, as it is not their field of expertise, they are reliable for the claim (for example) primates have a firm of language, not for what is language. Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"A form of language" would still have WP:ECREE issues, though. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Not as an attributed claim. Slatersteven (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

But an attributed WP:ECREE claim would need to be pretty immediately countered by an understanding of consensus per WP:UNDUE, no? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I think "what is language" is a definitional question without a right or wrong answer. Therefore, it could be both factually correct that primates are incapable of language according to the definition used by linguists, and that they are capable of language according to the definition used by biologists. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no argument being presented here, either by me, linguists, or primatologists (with one singular exception, who acknowledges he's against the grain), that a different definition is being used, though. I do understand that sometimes some fieds have a different definition of technical terms (as a cosmochemist I can definitely upset people with metal), but this isn't one of those cases.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The article for Language says: "Language is a structured system of communication that consists of grammar and vocabulary." Already, this is not a rigorous definition. What is structure? What is grammar? What is vocabulary? We can go down the rabbit hole by looking them up but even those terms are defined fuzzily. What I'm saying is, there's no agreed-upon set of specific properties that a communication system must satisfy in order to be considered a language. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

No ape communication study has ever claimed to have observed grammar, though. Not "they've proposed grammar and their definition of grammar was rejected", but rather nobody even among proponents has even argued that grammar has been observed, unless I'm quite mistaken. This is actually one of the big points here (sorry, not trying to WP:BLUDGEON, there's just a degree of technicality in here). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In fact, the Language article acknowledges this ambiguity by having a section titled "Distinctive features of human language" with a link to "Animal language". So IMO arguing over whether certain animals are capable of "language" is pointless. Even the most ardent primatologists will admit that there are substantial differences between human and non-human communication systems. So if we define "language" as "the system of communication used by humans" (or equivalently, defining it to cherry-pick the specific features that are known to be expressed only in humans), then the statement "only humans are capable of language" becomes a tautology. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how you're jumping to it being a tautology? Communication and language are distinct concepts, and

Even the most ardent primatologists will admit that there are substantial differences between human and non-human communication systems.

The claim here is specifically about apes using language as humans understand it when trained in sign language by researchers, not a distinct communication system. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"language as humans understand it" <- and there's the problem. At its core, the reason why humans have a word called "language" is to describe "a communication system similar to ours". The ape researchers perhaps have a lower bar for how similar a communication system needs to be to the ones used by humans to be considered a language. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Except, again, the claim is that these apes are using language as humans understand it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

But the content under question is not related to that. We have a very specific discussion at Great ape language, about a single line in the lede (as opposed to the many other edits you made that were correctly scoped on this matter). I don't know what this question on RSN has to do with any of that. Nobody is saying that a primatologist should define language generally (but more correctly there is no 'general definition' of language to begin with, since it is like most definitions scoped to the problem of interest). SamuelRiv (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a question about reliability but about due weight, editorial discretion, and perhaps how to present disagreements among scholars and sources. I recommend closing this discussion so it can be properly held in the article's Talk page where it belongs. ElKevbo (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There's definitely an WP:RS issue here considering WP:ECREE claims made outside a pertinent field exist in the literature. Should those claims be taken seriously, or does the fact that they're both WP:ECREE claims and published in a journal from an unrelated field (which, per the gigantic banner at the topi as I edit this: The reliability of a source depends on its context. and from there editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible) render us obligated to consider these sources as unreliable for the specific claims they make? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Now, I should probably disengage to not actually WP:BLUDGEON. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I've got to agree with ElKevbo on this - the discussion belongs on the talk page. And I'd have to add that primatologists doing research into language use in non-human primates are clearly qualified to discuss the matter, as a 'pertinent field'. In fact, I'd go further, and suggest that they are arguably the only ones qualified to do so, since nobody else has done similar research. If their definition of 'language' differs from that of linguistics etc, and we have sources that say so, we must of course state this, but we can't simply dismiss a whole field of academic research because other academics use words differently. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

If their definition of 'language' differs from that of linguistics etc, and we have sources that say so, we must of course state this, but we can't simply dismiss a whole field of academic research because other academics use words differently.

Sincere question (and counter to my statement above, sorry): Where is everyone getting this idea that a distinct definition is being used? Is there something super ambiguous in the question I posted at WP:RSN that leads to that impression? The entire point of contention is that a different definition isn't being used, the claim is that apes are using language as humans understand language to be, directly to communicate with humans. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It's because expert jargon in a technical field usually has a narrower definition than the common lay definition. Linguists construct rigorous definitions because that is what they are out to do. But that doesn't mean that when non-linguists use the word, they are using the more rigorous definition. You didn't answer my query on the article talk - is it no longer language if I speak to you in a sort of caveman pidgin with pointing and grunts? Andre🚐 22:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I would love a single source that there is a distinct technical definition being used in primatology. It would end this entire WP:RS question, because of course different fields use different terminology. I'll take the rest to the talk page to not gunk this up. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest (as I suggest for every post I comment on in RSN) that you post the content you are interested in adding into a particular article, in its context. As it says at the top of RSN, evaluating RS depends on context.

The reason this is important here is that, as you allude to in your request, we are request RS/AC for the definition of language. A single paper on linguistics has no more value than a single paper on primatology or a single paper on everythingology. Academic consensus requires recent review articles, and as I've said in the subject discussion, animal language is one of the most well-published of the "single problems" in general linguistics -- there is no shortage of print to find.

And for reference to others here, there is an ongoing discussion about the misuse/overuse of WP:Fringe over at VPP. It seems that if User:Warrenmck is accurately describing a dispute between two academic disciplines (and peer-reviewed research within, whether or not one has much more claim to some universal legitimacy than another), then this cannot fit wp's definition fringe, and it probably does not even fit our definition of wp:fringe/alt (which is meant to exclude questionable and pseudoscience). SamuelRiv (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with all of that Andre🚐 01:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, and this isn’t the venue for it, I do legitimately think this is a WP:FRINGE issue in part. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 04:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note this has now been raised at WP:FTN. Bon courage (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

StopAntisemitism

Currently the article List of antisemitic incidents in the United States cites StopAntisemitism for several incidents & describes it as a civil rights group. In actuality however, they are an advocacy group, self-described as "a grassroots watchdog organization". Discussion has been had on the talk page, involving @Steven1991, @Galdrack, & @Cdjp1. Cdjp1 recommended I take this here & of which I'll quote them here.

"if we have RS news sources reporting these incidents, we don’t really need StopAntisemitism as a source. This is supported by the fact that looking at their website, the incidents they report are all cited to news outlets, and they only provide a little opinion if anything novel to it. [...] considering that they engage in the antisemitic trope of conflating Jews/Judaism with Israel, this can bring some of the incidents into question, as well as their website overall."

Their usage consists of/is used to corroborate sources [15], [17], [19], [24], [25], [26], [27], [30], [31], [35], [36], [38], [44], [55], & [62]

I do not believe they are a reputable enough organization to be cited for this subject & may potentially risks the article's credibility, doubly so with their twitter's history of doxing & participation in harassment campaigns. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

1.) I’d appreciate if a definition can be given for “reputable” in this context

2.) The hate crimes reported by the group are mostly supplemented with reliable news sources, some found within the reports on the group’s website itself, which do not compromise the authenticity to any extent, unless you can prove that the crimes have never occurred

3.) Despite the group’s presentation manner of some reported crimes being debatable, I find it difficult understanding what is meant by “doxxing” or “harassment”, when many of those exposed by the group to have committed hate crimes did so in public spaces. The only exception is if it involves anything private being publicised in contravention of U.S. federal laws

4.) Further to (3.), most of those hate crimes are reported by verifiable sources simultaneously. Are those sources, some of which are established media outlets, also engaging in “doxxing” or “harassment” ? It is understandable that there are real-life consequences for committing hate crimes. One cannot claim “doxxing” or “harassment” when they face repercussions for illegal actions, which are matters of public interest

5.) I object to such an exclusion as the group’s website does not appear to have been classified as an unreliable source in any respect on Wikipedia Steven1991 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I just revisited the group’s website and do not seem to be able to find instances of unauthorised publication of personal information as alleged. Steven1991 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

For everyone’s reference:

WP:RS

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Steven1991 (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I've already linked the talk page where others can read the previous discussion, there's no need for you to copy all of your comments here. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I simply recapped them for convenience. Steven1991 (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

They are an advocacy group. They should only be used with attribution and very rarely on BLPs if its going to be about matters such as this. If there are other, actually reliable sources covering the material, then those should be used instead. Not sure why anyone would be using this group over proper sources, unless it's for POV pushing reasons. Silverseren^C 17:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Because some of the recorded incidents were not reported on legacy media. If less known news sites were cited as references, it would also raise concerns of credibility. So, citing reports from the group’s website is a compromise. Steven1991 (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not a compromise. An advocacy group is not a reliable source for negative WP:BLP material. I would say it's a violation inherently of our policy to use it at all for that. And if the only coverage is on minor news sites, then WP:DUE comes into play. Again, especially on BLP related subject matter. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a negative POV-pushing source. Silverseren^C 18:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. I’d remove some of them from the article then. Steven1991 (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking through the 3 most recent pages of incidents they have, every one links to an external news outlet. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Not that this goes to the core of the matter, but I have trouble thinking of a "civil rights group" that isn't an advocacy group; they advocate for civil rights (in whatever form they prefer.) So merely saying that they are an advocacy group does not mean they are not a civil rights group. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

While that can be true, how is this group a civil rights group? They aren't advocating for rights for anyone that I can tell, but advocating for criminal arrests and civil action against defined people. Kind of the opposite of advocating for civil rights. Silverseren^C 18:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) did dozens of lawsuits against hate groups in America, but I have never heard complaints of them being “unreliable” or “not being” civil rights groups, so I don’t believe that is the issue. Steven1991 (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Except that many of SPLC's legal cases are specifically about protecting or creating legal protections for minorities. Not just against hate groups. Has StopAntisemitism done anything of the sort that would be considered civil rights action? The issue otherwise with your argument would be claiming that all advocacy groups and pressure groups are civil rights groups, which very much is not the case. Silverseren^C 18:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, but I am not the one classifying it as a civil rights group. On its Wikipedia article, it is classified as an “advocacy group focused on antisemitism” instead. Steven1991 (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

“advocacy group focused on antisemitism” ≠ civil rights group. Also WP:NOTSOURCE. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not say that it was a civil rights group comparable to the ADL or SPLC. I would appreciate if you can point it out, then I may apologise for the mistake. Steven1991 (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This train of conversation started with Nat Gertler discussing the classification of civil rights groups, to which Silver seren clarified.

You then replied "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) did dozens of lawsuits against hate groups in America, but I have never heard complaints of them being “unreliable” or “not being” civil rights groups", implying a comparison of SPLC to StopAntisemitism.

As such, I clarified the difference & why they shouldn't be compared in that way. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Arguably, WP:SPLC indicates we use WP:OPINION especially when indicating groups that are hate groups.

We cannot list every incident that a very partisan and biased group labels as antisemitic in a wikipedia article, especially if there is no other reliable coverage. See also WP:TOOMUCH Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You may want to look at their entry in the perennial sources list then. My hope, is that through discussion and consensus building here, we will have a similar result for StopAntisemitism, so as to help avoided repeated back-and-forths in the future. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I have already removed the ones which can be referenced by more preferable sources. Steven1991 (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The major funder is the Milstein Foundation which also funds a number of other right-wing or "pro-Israel" groups such as Americans for Limited Government, Christians United for Israel, the Henry Jackson Society, the Jewish Republican Alliance, Judicial Watch, PragerU and the Heritage Foundation. They don't support the ADL or as far as I could tell any mainstream Jewish, centrist or progressive groups.[40]

There's a lot of misinformation spread by these groups.

I would therefore be suspect of anything StopAntisemitism said, based on their funding. TFD (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to see credible evidence for it. Would you mind providing it? Steven1991 (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Milstein Family Foundation lists it on their website. StopAntisemitism mentions it in two of their articles shaming people, hence the lack of a direct link. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a terrible source, it has no reputation for fact checking and its about us page doesn't even list any editorial review. Its twitter basically consists of doxxing protestors and calling on people to be fired. Should not be cited anywhere. Just looking at their last few posts on twitter, they say wildly untrue things like a keffiyeh, a symbol now associated with violence against Jews post 10/7. Just an absolutely garbage source. nableezy - 19:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Nableezy. Should not be used at all. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

wapo indicates they are primarily known for doxing and for suggesting any pro-palestinian action is inherently antisemitic. [41]

[42] suggests they engage in lawfare primarily against pro-Palestinian protestors.

It has called CAIR a terror affiliated org [43]

Their funding source is a pro-israel family foundation [44] so the bias is expected, though the extreme bias makes it extremely troubling. If anything is cited from this source, it must be attributed and weighed with whether it is WP:DUE Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely garbage (as many of the organisations which are supported by Adam Milstein are.) Just look at their web-site on whom they call "anti-semite of the week" this year: Greta Thunberg, Bassem Youssef, just to mention two: basically anyone protesting the Gaza genocide. And they practise "Palestinian denialism": they call Mohamed Hadid "Jordanian" [45], as "Palestinians don't exist", so they make him "Jordanian" (which is his citizenship, not his nationality)(they could just as well have called him "American", as he has American citizenship, too) Huldra (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You said about Electronic Intifada that 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. when voting for Option 2 there. [46] You also said about Mondoweiss that Off course it has a POV, like all other media focusing on Israel/Palestine, hence there will always be people with WP:IDONTLIKEIT-views. [47]

You're holding StopAntisemitism here to a different standard here. Why is Electronic Intifada, an organization that denies Israel's existence WP:MREL while StopAntisemitism is "absolutely garbage" for not describing Mohamed Hadid as Palestinian when our Wikipedia article doesn't either? Your claim here is that StopAntisemitism is wrong because it expresses certain opinions (criticism of Israel is antisemitic/denying Palestine is wrong), but you don't hold pro-Palestinian sources to that standard.

I'd like to see an explanation of your standard here. Given that there's an WP:ARCA thread [48] about whether or not editors express contradictory viewpoints in discussions depending on which side of the Israel-Palestine conflict those viewpoints benefit, it's valid to discuss whether or not WP:RSN is setting a contradictory standard depending on which side of the Israel-Palestine conflict a side supports. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no variable standard; my point was that Newspapers are more correct referring people they are close to, ie their "friends", than they are referring to the opinions of their "foes". Ie, if Arutz Sheva wrote that a settler spokesperson had said such and such, I would be pretty confident that the settler spokesperson actually had said such and such. However, they routinely ascribe opinions, and goals of say, the peace-movement, or Hamas, or Hizbollah, that I never have heard people from those organisations have voiced. However, StopAntisemitism writes only about its "foes", never about it's "friends", hence it is unreliable. If StopAntisemitism also had written about its "friends", then we would have another situation, more like Mondoweiss and EI. Huldra (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If people start citing electronic intifada to claim some person is a racist then you might have something other than a false equivalency. nableezy - 00:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

EI is currently cited in Maen Rashid Areikat to claim he supported Israeli ethnic cleansing.[49]

Do you feel EI is reliable enough to be cited with attribution to describe Areikat as supporting ethnic cleansing? If so, how is that different than StopAntisemitism being cited with attribution for calling someone an antisemite? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I would not use it there. nableezy - 02:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and just for the record, are you actually of the opinion that StopAntisemitism is a reliable source? nableezy - 02:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

StopAntisemitism should be used with attribution and other sources preferred. So, the greenish-yellow (vomit/nausea coloured) zone of sources that don't lie, but are opinionated enough not to give WikiVoice to. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

And that’s based on what? nableezy - 07:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Most of the evidence here shows bias. StopAntisemitism pointing out that the keffiyeh is associated with violence against Jews is a subjective feeling that some people have. Symbols have different meanings to different people.

Mondoweiss says the Star of David is fair game to be treated as a hate symbol subject to ridicule because Israel associated it with Zionism.[50]

It's a double standard to say StopAntisemitism should not be cited anywhere because it associated the keffiyeh with hate when Mondoweiss associates the Star of David with hate and gets a pass.

The double standard needs to be actively considered because excluding one side's sources over another will create systemic bias in the Israel and Palestine topic area.

To me, the standard that should be applied is less important than the goal of applying it consistently. So, if my views on a source don't matter (as you've told me), yours shouldn't either. Treating this like Mondoweiss or EI would mean greenish-yellow. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 08:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you really want to post about Mondoweiss and Electronic Infitada, but you seem to be doing it in the wrong section on the page. You can start a new section at the top, if you haven't noticed. Parabolist (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I started both of the previous discussions on those sources, and Mondoweiss was WP:MREL because "bias doesn't imply unreliability". EI was WP:GUNREL but the commenter I'm replying to !voted otherwise.

My point is that the standard applied to Palestinian sources in this area is very different than the one applied to Jewish sources. I believe showing that a different standard exists is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. If Palestinian sources have, as a general rule, weaker reliability requirements than Jewish sources, Wikipedia articles will have more Palestinian sources and become more biased towards the Palestinian perspective. This thread on StopAntisemitism is an appropriate place to point out that Jewish sources are being held to an unfair standard. Specifically, the claim that StopAntisemitism considers the keffiyeh to be a hate symbol and is therefore unreliable is not a standard I believe Nableezy would hold Mondoweiss to.

If you can't address the existence of the double standard or provide explanations as to why the disparate impact is OK, there's not much more for us to discuss. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Except you’re misrepresenting what Mondoweiss said. An opinion piece there said that the Star of David is a symbol of Israel, not a symbol of hate. That also was not the crux of my argument as to why this doxxing, harassment and intimidation site is unreliable. But cool to know you’re fine with such a source I guess. Also nice touch in calling them Jewish sources as though they were being critiqued for being Jewish. nableezy - 17:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

A subjective feeling, that’s an interesting why to phrase a completely made up thing. Got it. And where does Mondoweiss associate the Star of David with hate???? nableezy - 12:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This is an advocacy group, and not a reputable one. References to it should be removed, and the content it supports should be removed if a better source can't be found. The one exception would be instances where the subject is StopAntisemitism and its opinion, but even then it would be better to use an independent source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

AMCHA Initiative Reliability for determining List of antisemitic incidents in the United States

Going off similar information as WP:RSN#StopAntisemitism, should AMCHA Initiative be considered reliable, especially when discussing inclusion in List of antisemitic incidents in the United States? @Steven1991 and @Butterscotch Beluga Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Theoretically, it is more preferable to cite sources from not-look-dubious media outlets, but if it is not possible, then under exceptional circumstances, AMCHA Initiative’s sources shall be considered, subject to careful assessment. Steven1991 (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that's backwards. We shouldn't look at sources because they cover incidents we're looking for, we should include incidents because they're covered by reliable sources.

If the only one's reporting something are "not-look-dubious media outlets", then perhaps it's not WP:DUE for inclusion. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that reports of incidents not showing up on “reliable” media outlets are not always unreliable.
The concept of “reliability” is vulnerable to manipulation by either side of any political issues being covered. There are no outlets absolutely “reliable” – even The New York Times and Washington Post had a history of it over various reasons, including editorial biases.
Moreover, thousands of crimes happen every month and no media outlets would report every single one of them. Yet, it would be incredibly unwise to assume that they never happened or are unworthy of being recorded in respective Wikipedia articles, which could constitute whitewashing given that the site is one of the most visited in the world and considered by tens of millions as somehow a credible source of information. Steven1991 (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, we've discussed this already. Lack of inclusion ≠ assumption of nonexistence. We are not whitewashing anything here & we must have standards for inclusion & exclusion. You even described the source as a "not-look-dubious media outlet", so please, read WP:DUE & WP:NOTDB. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Lack of inclusion ≠ assumption of nonexistence.

It depends, subject to broader context, which is debatable.

You even described the source as a "not-look-dubious media outlet"

What I mean is that if an incident, of sufficient seriousness, happened and relevant reports are not found in legacy media but only less reputable news sources, then they shall be considered. This is fully aligned with Wikipedia’s editing guidelines and some editors mentioned it before.

read WP:DUE & WP:NOTDB

We cannot classify something as “undue” or “indiscriminate” simply because we don’t want, for whatever reasons, them to be recorded in particular Wikipedia articles. What one deems “undue” or “indiscriminate” is/are not necessarily so, nor are there guarantees that the judgement(s) of a few accounts (assuming that they are not sockpuppets) is/are fair. It may have gone beyond the scope, but again, it’s all subject to broader context and due discussions. Steven1991 (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:DUE means that the article should mention the fact and would be incomplete without that fact. Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.WP:INDISCRIMINATE states To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia

Those are both valid concerns for removal of information from an article to improve its legibility and encyclopedic content. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Currently, the Jewish Chronicle, StopAntisemitism, and now AMCHA Initiative are up for discussion on this page. Do you have actual evidence of the AMCHA publishing false information? Or are we just running down the list of Jewish outlets to try to ban them. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't comment on Jewish Chronicle as that discussion started a bit ago, but StopAntisemitism & AMCHA Initiative are both here because we were cleaning up List of antisemitic incidents in the United States to better focus on notability rather then indiscriminate information. As they're both advocacy groups funded by the Milstein Family Foundation & StopAntisemitism was deemed a poor source earlier, I understand why AMCHA Initiative was brought here as well (though it doesn't appear the community has as much to say regarding them)

I would however appreciate it if you'd not cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not casting aspersions. WP:RSP can be used to exclude certain sources from the entire wiki. If one side is discussed more than another, it can very quickly cause systemic bias across the entire wiki.

A good way to prevent this is to actively question whether the standards we're holding sources to are universally applied to both sides in a conflict area. In this case, I believe the standards AMCHA and StopAntisemitism are being held to are not equally applied to Palestinian sources in the topic area.

The standard Palestinian sources are held to is that WP:BIAS does not affect reliability. So a pro-Palestinian source like Electronic Intifada, Palestine Chronicle, or Mondoweiss can call for the death of Jews, say Zionism is inherently anti Palestinian, or that Israelis are genocidal maniacs that are indoctrinated into killing Palestinians, and still be reliable.

Meanwhile, StopAntisemitism, the ADL, and AMCHA are being held to a different standard. Because these groups regularly call out what they believe to be anti-Semitic behaviour by pro-Palestinians, they are deemed unreliable as advocacy groups.

The common claim is that these groups view all pro-Palestinian activism as anti-Semitic. Even if this was an accurate representation of AMCHA, the ADL, or StopAntisemitism, it's still a double standard because EI, PC, and Mondoweiss call Zionism inherently racist and that is not seen as false.

I'm challenging this double standard by asking for actual evidence of factual inaccuracies in AMCHA's reporting. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider any of those six sources you listed to have enough due weight for an article such as this for inclusion. We would want high quality news sources and preferably several of those before including them on such a list or it just becomes a massive bunch of unimportant and indiscriminate incidents. There needs to be some sort of consideration for exclusion and I would say if your sources of coverage only amount to Electronic Intifada, AMCHA, Palestine Chronicle, ADL, Mondoweiss, or StopAntisemitism, then you don't have proper weight for inclusion to begin with. Silverseren^C 01:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

In this case, posting at RSN implies a wish to form a global consensus on the reliability of those sources for all of Wikipedia, instead of just that particular article. While those six sources may be equally treated at that one article, they are not equally treated wikiwide.

As an example, you brought up about StopAntisemitism that they are an advocacy group. They should only be used with attribution and very rarely on BLPs if its going to be about matters such as this. In contrast, Mondoweiss (which is a news site that focuses on publishing advocacy for one side) does not have this standard applied, with a close review striking the clause about it being unreliable for BLPs after an editor tried to remove it from BLPs.[51]

While you might end up saying that both Mondoweiss and StopAntisemitism likely aren't the best sources for BLPs, we'd need to discuss the first in tandem with the second if we want to ensure that both sides are being held to the same standard for the purposes of neutrality. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not extended confirmed, so I have not been involved in any of that, I can't even comment on most of what you wrote. It's obvious you're upset, but what you're talking about is unrelated to this conversation.

We are trying to raise the standards of the article in question due to the weight the topic holds. StopAntisemitism & AMCHA Initiative are both advocacy groups, not news organizations. The former of the two also regularly participates in doxing & harassment campaigns.

As for my remark regarding aspersions, your comment: "are we just running down the list of Jewish outlets to try to ban them.", is quite clearly implying others are here with ill intent, of which I do not appreciate. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I wasn't aware that you weren't extended confirmed. That's a valid reason for not discussing other publications. I will concede that you are not running down the list of Jewish outlets to try to ban them.

While I respectfully disagree that what I'm talking about is unrelated, I won't bring it up with you again since it's unfair that you can't respond. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

glbtq Encyclopedia Project

I've noticed that some information regarding Aztec's mythology has been removed in a recent edit of Homosexuality in Mexico

The source used to be an entry from glbtq.com; I want to add it back but first I need to know if it's a reliable source.

Thanks in advance. Ang720 (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Provide the diff? And ping the editors involved? And did you BRD?

If the glbt encyclopedia is the same as it was however many years ago (which never cited sources), and even if it's tangentially referencing the paper I think it is (which I discussed on iirc Talk:Aztecs), then no on several fronts. But per the RSN header, you do have to provide even a modicum of a clue of what you are talking about. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I was refering to this edit: [52] made by @Antiquistik; specifically the first paragraph of The Mexicas, where Xochiquétzal and the mythical story were mentioned in the old version.

I wanted to know if the source (glbtq) is reliable before doing any edits (I don't want to add unreliable information back). Ang720 (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Until iarchive is back online I can't evaluate, as the pages are dead. Specific, academic, up-to-date information is always preferable, so the deletion of even some of the books (including "Gleich und anders" which seems to be a generic source and worse, is not given a page number) would be appropriate on its surface. If you have a specific content dispute, did you take it up with User:Antiquistik? Did you notify the user about referring their edits to RSN? SamuelRiv (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"Did you notify the user about referring their edits to RSN?" I didn't because my question was regarding the old version's sources' reliability (I don't have questions regarding the new ones), I was unsure if the first paragraph was accidentally removed, so I prefered to ask first if the source was reliable.

"If you have a specific content dispute, did you take it up with User:Antiquistik?"

I don't think I have a content dispute (sorry if it sounded like I did), but I will elaborate how I think the article could be improved in Antiquistik's talk page.

Thank you. Ang720 (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the diff I don't see that the sources reliability has been questioned. Although this use was removed there are other uses of the same sources still used in the article, anf the editor who removed this use made no comment about it's reliability (unless I missed something).

It's important to remember that verification is required for all included content, but not all verifiable information needs to be included (verification doesn't guarantee inclusion). I suggest talking with the editor and asking why they removed the content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliability and independence of sources with affiliate links

As far as I can see, the last time this was discussed was in Archive 264 about 5 years ago, and I don't think there was very much of a clear consensus. There is some loose guidance in our current guidelines on what counts as a sponsored (and thus non-independent) review, for example, WP:PRODUCTREV considers reviews where the reviewed product is provided free as sponsored reviews but affiliate links, which are very common, doesn't seem to be mentioned on any guidelines that I could tell. This came up in a few recent and not-so-recent AfDs for me, so I thought it might be worthwhile to gauge the community sentiment on a few principles.

For example, I think in most cases for reputable sources, like the New York Times, or maybe Wired or The Verge, few people would consider it to affect reliability per se. On the other hand, I'd guess more would agree that there's a risk of such coverage being more indiscriminate, and be less useful in establishing notability or due weight, though I'd like to get an idea of how many here. There are also other interesting questions like whether it matters if the affiliate program is run by the company making the product or a major retailer like Amazon or Newegg instead, and more generally if the form of the links make any difference at all. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the best answer you can have for this is 'it depends', as it's so general. The issue isn't affiliate links, but how much those affiliate links effect editorial decisions. That's going to change between different publications and over time within the same publication.
The more reputable the publication the less it's likely to be an issue, as they usually have less reason to rely on affiliate links and more to loose by abusing them. Personally I wouldn't consider a source that indiscriminately reviews products to add to notability, but that's a point separate from reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The Telegraph RFC has been reclosed

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.

---

Anyone interested in the close can find it here, WP:AN#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues. I have also made a copy of it in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444, so that a version remains in the RSN archives. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but that closure's wording (understandably) doesn't answer what ultimately became the core question, which is how (or whether) we reflect a no-consensus RFC outcome on a source that have an existing non-yellow entry on WP:RSP. Do we need a separate RFC to settle that procedural question? --Aquillion (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn’t we simply update RSP to reflect the “no consensus” determination? Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious to me that yes, this is exactly what we would do. Not coming to an agreement about a source is the exact definition of "no consensus" and so the source's listing should reflect this new no-consensus reality. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I was going to open a section on WT:RSP about that point, but the RSP had already been updated. I suggest any discussion about how RSP is updated should happen there rather than here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Let's just have a separate RfC on that and defer the WP:RSP listing. Make it purple+a question mark. We can run that 30-day RfC faster than a slow-motion edit war and the inevitable third close review. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

And then we can have a fourth RFC to argue about the third RFC. Blueboar (talk) Blueboar (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to exist at the first link. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was taken down. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• So, just to summarize: on 7th July I closed the original discussion to say that there's no consensus about the Telegraph's reliability on trans issues; and I said that RSP should say there's no such consensus. And here we are, after enough word count to fill several novels, with the exact result I originally called, but other people's signatures on the closes.—S Marshall T/C 01:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  It wasn't really your verdict of "no consensus" that was objected to, it was the language that you used during the close was that was why it was overturned. Sandstein's close has less content that could be considered objectionable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Of course! It has no objectionable content because it's nothing but a statement of the vote count. I mean that without criticism of Sandstein; if I was closing a discussion that had been closed, reverted, unreverted, reviewed, overturned, re-closed, reverted, unreverted, re-reverted again, vacated, and then left unclosed for two months cos no-one would touch it, then I too would write an extremely short and unobjectionable closing summary.

  The practical outcome is exactly the same as if my close had been left untouched, and there's an opportunity for some of the people who participated in those reviews to do some thinking about that.—S Marshall T/C 08:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Basically what Hemiauchenia said, though I do understand the frustration. Though also it's probably worth noting that Sandstein didn't explicitly said what RSP should say, he just left the mechanics of RSP up for other people to argue about. Loki (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, but this time it seems we're going to have to have a whole discussion about if RSP should actually correctly report the close as no consensus or (bafflingly) say something different than what the close says. Parabolist (talk) 06:06, 16 October 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.

Palestine Chronicle

Palestine Chronicle is a questionable news outlet. As an example, it hired a freelance journalist Abdallah Aljamal to write articles on the Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis who was later revealed to be holding Israelis as hostages. [53] Aljamal was also a spokesperson for Hamas. This is an obvious conflict of interest; war correspondents do not actively participate in wars nor are they paid by the militaries they are covering. The Jewish Chronicle is currently being discussed for failure to vet freelancers---should the Palestine Chronicle also be held to that standard?

Likewise, both the JC and the ADL have been deemed unreliable because they conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. The claim is that criticism of Zionism being inherently antisemitic is enough to declare an outlet as unreliable. In contrast, the Palestine Chronicle regularly says that support of Zionism is a form of anti-Palestinian racism[54] and contributors say that Jewish organizations should be forced to abandon Zionism or be disbanded. [55]

Finally, the Palestine Chronicle's news division publishes false information. For example, the PC's news division said that Lindsey Graham called for Israel to nuke Gaza. [56] This was considered false/misleading by Newsweek.[57]

Palestine Chronicle is linked 238 times on Wikipedia, so this is a widely used publication that may have to be re-evaluated in light of the standards being set in the topic area. [58] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, should be generally unreliable if not deprecated Andre🚐 01:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the evidence you've provided here is sufficient to call Palestine Chronicle's reliability into serious question. It is no doubt biased, but bias isn't the same as unreliability. The evidence you've provided here doesn't hold up to further scrutiny.

On the Abdallah Aljamal controversy, the claim that Aljamal was holding hostages in his home was reported by the Israel military, which has killed more than 120 journalists during the war. The source you provided says Aljamal was a spokesperson for the Gaza labor ministry. Although Hamas is the government of Gaza, this is not the same as being a spokesperson for Hamas. CNN said that Israel provided no evidence for its claim that Aljamal was keeping hostages in his home. CNN further calls this claim into question, pointing out that Aljamal lived on a different story of the multi-family building where the hostages were found from the floor where the Israeli military said it recovered them. CNN also says that the claim Aljamal was a spokesperson for the labor ministry comes from the Israeli military. It's also worth noting that between 100 and 274 people were killed during this operation, which demonstrates that it took place in a dense and complex environment. This further supports the view that the IDF's claims are insufficiently supported by meaningful evidence. Finally, none of this proves that Aljamal was an unreliable source as a journalist for the Palestine Chronicle. A brief overview of his contributions indicates that they consist largely of on-the-ground interviews with Gazans. Seeing as Aljamal was a photojournalist, his articles are full of photographic evidence that corroborates the stories he tells in them. Biased he may have been, but this was a level of access to the on-the-ground reality in Gaza that few media outlets have. Gazan journalists provide us with an essential part of the whole picture of the reality of this war. It would be foolish to discredit them without strong evidence of their unreliability.

I don't think it makes sense to regard the ADL and Palestine Chronicle as equivalent. The reason I argued for the ADL's unreliability in that RFC (which to my understanding was one of the major reasons it was closed as unreliable) is because the ADL portrays itself as an objective, apolitical research organization while functionally promoting a pro-Israel interpretation of what antisemitism is. The article you linked from the Palestine Chronicle is clearly an opinion piece and does not claim to be anything other than that.

Palestine Chronicle's comments on Lindsey Graham are on its blog. Per WP:NEWSBLOG, the Palestine Chronicle Blog should not necessarily be considered reliable. However, I don't see why this should affect the reliability of Palestine Chronicle's hard news reporting. The Newsweek article you mentioned doesn't mention Palestine Chronicle by name or call its coverage of Graham's remarks misleading. Despite the clickbait-y headline, the article is a bit more nuanced: Comparing Israel’s war on Gaza to the US war with Japan during World War II, US Senator Lindsey Graham said on Sunday that Israel should do whatever it needs to do to win the war. He implied that Israel should drop nuclear bombs over Gaza. I think this is essentially correct. Graham's remarks do imply that Israel's use of nuclear weapons would be justified if it were necessary for Israel's survival or victory in the war. Unbandito (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

CNN spent a month doing their own research and confirmed with their own reporters that Aljamal is linked to Hamas.[59] Your article is old and no longer accurate. That being said, you acknolwedged that CNN is reliable on this subject. So, do you acknowledge that Aljamal was affiliated with Hamas?Aljamal's affiliation is relevant because he was being paid by an organization he was covering. It's interesting you say about Palestinian journalists that It would be foolish to discredit them without strong evidence of their unreliability. Do you apply that standard to Israeli journalists?

You say your problem with the ADL is because it portrays itself as an objective, apolitical research organization while functionally promoting a pro-Israel interpretation of what antisemitism is". Reading PC's about page shows The Palestine Chronicle team consists of professional journalists and respected writers and authors who don’t speak on behalf of any political party or champion any specific political agenda. [60] You've just acknowledged the Palestine Chronicle does promote a pro-Palestinian viewpoint. By the standard you applied to the ADL, the Palestine Chronicle saying it doesn't champion a specific political agenda is enough to discredit it. Please engage with this. Why is the Palestine Chronicle different?

I'd like to zero in on the last two points. Virtually all of what Palestine Chronicle tags as "news" is also tagged as part of their "blog". Likewise, most of the rest of their website is tagged as "commentary" (the opinion pieces). The only thing not tagged under either of those are features. Either way, almost all of our sourcing to PC is to their blogs/commentary. Can we go ahead and remove those sources? If not, why? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, you say Newsweek is wrong, but you acknowledge Lindsay Graham did not actually call for nuking Gaza. He said Israel can use nuclear weapons if sufficiently threatened. What do you think of this feature (not a blog), which says Republican Party Senator, Lindsey Graham, recently sparked a controversy with his call for “nuclear weapons” to be used against the people of Gaza in order to end the ongoing war.[61] Did Lindsey Graham call for nuclear weapons to be used against Gazans to end the war? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the updated CNN article. That article does indeed confirm that Aljamal worked for the ministry of labor as late as 2022. Aljamal made nearly all of his contributions to the Palestine Chronicle in 2023 and 2024, but he did write three articles during the time he could have been working for the Gaza government, according to CNN. They are all about civil society issues: a gas leak, the cancer crisis, and Gaza's beaches. Aljamal's reporting from 2023 onward tends to focus on detailed interviews with Palestinian civilian and civil society sources, which I believe is of some value to expanding and improving Wikipedia. To give one example, I think this article on the killing of Hatem al-Ghamri provides important balance and adds considerable detail to the only other notable account of his death in the TOI. The same goes for this account of the killing of Iyad al-Maghari which adds some detail to France24's reporting of it. Aljamal also wrote detailed reports on the killings of Gazans who did not receive meaningful coverage elsewhere, like Awni Abu Awn and Haneen al-Qashtan. I am not persuaded that Aljamal's past association with Hamas's civilian government should outweigh or invalidate his reporting for Palestine Chronicle or the Chronicle's use in general as a source.

You ask me if I would apply the same standard to Israeli journalists, and my answer is yes. Barak Ravid of Axios served in the IDF reserves until March 2023, and you do not see me calling for Axios to be scraped from the record. Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic served as an Israeli prison guard. I don't think it's productive to remove all coverage by The Atlantic from I-P related Wikipedia pages. If we were to apply your standard to Israeli journalists we would disqualify nearly all of them, due to the conscription practices of the IDF. In general, I think that writing in this topic area benefits from a full exposition of conflicting narratives. I'm unwilling to sign on to attempts to knock out sources on one side or another, especially when they provide us with unique details or a marginalized narrative, unless there is strong evidence that those sources have published inaccurate or misleading information. Even then, I think that content disputes are often best dealt with on a case by case basis rather than by painting sources with a broad brush. In a topic rife with systemic bias and selective coverage of events, including at the legacy media level, we need as many sources as we can get and should focus on verifiability and consensus among sources over designations of broad reliability.

I believe these discussions are supposed to take place in the context of a content dispute, so can you provide an example of where Palestine Chronicle is used on Wikipedia in a way that is misleading or violates our core principles?

I am not going to dedicate much space to your arguments about the ADL, other than to reiterate that the Palestine Chronicle article you cited is clearly an opinion piece - something that news organizations who strive to be objective and non-partisan regularly publish - while the ADL attempts to pass off its politicized equivocation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism as objective research, in contravention of academic consensus. It's not remotely the same thing. Unbandito (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Your first paragraph doesn't address the point of the CNN article, which is that the hostages were found in Aljamal's house in 2024. Secretly holding Israeli hostages in one's house creates a conflict of interest when reporting on the Israeli military. To the best of my knowledge, neither Barak Ravid nor Jeffrey Goldberg have imprisoned Palestinians in their attics while reporting on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Finally, here's an example of a feature from Palestine Chronicle equating a Zionist conference in South Africa to racism. [62] If we can agree that Palestine Chronicle's opinion pieces and news articles are both bad sources, then we only have the features remaining to discuss.

I can't point to any content disputes anymore since you've conceded the usage of its commentary pieces and blogpost are both wrong, and those two are pretty much all of PC's use on Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 08:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be improper to use commentary or blog content from any source to put facts in wikivoice, per site-wide policies that apply to all sources. I do not agree with you that the presence of commentary and blog pieces on the site has any impact on Palestine Chronicle's overall reliability, unless you can demonstrate that PC is presenting opinion or commentary as hard news, which you have not yet done.

The article you do cite here about the conference in South Africa does not seem to indicate a reliability issue to me. It features interviews with people who are quite opinionated about the conference, but attributes those opinions. There could be an appropriate use for this source, for example in an article where the interviewees' opinions are relevant. If the source were used incorrectly by a biased editor, which again you haven't provided evidence for, that would not necessarily be an indication that it is unreliable. Rather, it would be an issue of an editor not understanding our policies that apply to all sources.

On the issue of the hostages found in the Aljamal family's house, the CNN article makes one important distinction in describing the situation as Hostages being held by civilians under the direction of Hamas. It also stops short of revealing any evidence that the Aljamal family received any sort of compensation for holding the hostages. Presumably, CNN could not find any. The article says it was likely that the family was trusted by Hamas, but nothing more. This was obviously a complex and fluid situation, and we don't know exactly the levels of coercion and complicity that were at play. As the article points out, Abdallah and his wife Fatima, as well as his father Ahmed (presumably the head of household) where killed by the IDF while his sister Zainab hid with Abdullah's children under a bed. It's unlikely that we'll ever definitively find out who knew what and how they felt about it. However, I would like to take your argument at its strongest -- let's assume that Abdullah had full knowledge of the hostage situation, was involved in the decision to hide the hostages on the third floor above his family's home, and agreed to do so willingly in the absence of any coercion from Hamas. While this is something that many would find morally reprehensible, you have yet to demonstrate how specifically this has impacted the credibility or veracity of his interviews with Gazan civilians and civil servants and reporting on the war, or show where exactly his reports have been used on Wikipedia in a misleading or otherwise detrimental way. More importantly, you haven't shown how this impacts the overall reliability of Palestine Chronicle. You say that this is an issue of failure to properly vet freelancers, but CNN says that the Aljamal family's own neighbors didn't know that hostages were kept in their midst. What did you expect the Washington, USA based Palestine Chronicle to do? Fly someone out to Gaza and check each of their Gaza contributors' homes for hostages?

I implore you to focus on actual uses of Palestine Chronicle as a citation on Wikipedia when building your case. Unbandito (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I have an issue and a quibble with this:

1) We don't consider the current Newsweek to be generally reliable which applies to this. Graham's comments were deemed to be suggesting nuclear action in reliable sources: The Independent: Senator Lindsey Graham has come under fire for drawing comparisons between Israel’s war on Gaza and the US’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan during World War II – urging Israel to “do whatever you have to do”. (...) “When we were faced with destruction as a nation after Pearl Harbor, fighting the Germans and the Japanese, we decided to end the war by bombing Hiroshima, Nagasaki with nuclear weapons,” Mr Graham told Kristin Welker. “That was the right decision,” he concluded. (...) “Give Israel the bombs they need to end the war they can’t afford to lose and work with them to minimise casualties,” Mr Graham continued; The New Republic: Representative Greg Murphy joined his fellow Republicans in suggesting that Israel could use nuclear weapons in its already brutal war on Gaza. (...) The congressman’s extreme rhetoric follows that of Senator Lindsey Graham, who on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday similarly suggested Israel could drop nuclear bombs on Gaza. “When we were faced with destruction as a nation after Pearl Harbor, fighting the Germans and the Japanese, we decided to end the war by the bombing (of) Hiroshima (and) Nagasaki with nuclear weapons,” Graham said. “That was the right decision.” He added, “Give Israel the bombs they need to end the war. They can’t afford to lose.” Graham and Murphy aren’t the first in Congress to suggest nuking the besieged Palestinian territory, though, as Representative Tim Walberg, another Republican, suggested that “it should be like Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” at a town hall meeting in late March; NBC News: Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on Sunday compared Israel’s war against Hamas to the U.S. decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan in World War II during an interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” “When we were faced with destruction as a nation after Pearl Harbor, fighting the Germans and the Japanese, we decided to end the war by the bombing (of) Hiroshima (and) Nagasaki with nuclear weapons,” Graham said. “That was the right decision.” He added, “Give Israel the bombs they need to end the war. They can’t afford to lose.” Graham, a staunch supporter of Israel, used the analogy multiple times while condemning President Joe Biden for threatening to withhold certain weapons from Israel if it launches a military operation in Rafah, the southernmost city in Gaza where over a million civilians are sheltering. Asked by moderator Kristen Welker why it was OK for President Ronald Reagan to withhold certain weapons from Israel during its war in Lebanon in the 1980s, but not OK for Biden to threaten to do so now, Graham once again brought up World War II. “Can I say this?” he asked. “Why is it OK for America to drop two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end their existential threat war? Why was it OK for us to do that? I thought it was OK.”

2) This is just a quibble, but I don't see how 238 uses makes it a widely used publication. For the sources you discussed, Times of Israel is used 9,907 times, Newsweek is used 12,175 times, and The Jewish Chronicle is used 2,740 times. For the sources I used, The Independent is used 106 times for the US version and 74,931 times for the UK version, The New Republic is used 2,810 times, and NBC News is used 23,535 times. All are used ten or more times as often.

Those were the things I observed. Your assessments about their failure to vet freelancers and their misleading claims of anti-Palestinian racism seem correct to me and should be used to deem them unreliable for being a source for the Israel/Palestine conflict and for anti-Palestinian claims. If you can clarify how they publish false information, then I could consider support them being generally unreliable instead of just in specific circumstances. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Replying to myself here to note that I missed Unbandito's comment until after I had submitted my own due to how I was using Reply. I have amended my comment in response. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, did you see CNN's follow-up article where they confirmed Abdallah had served as a spokesman for Gaza’s Ministry of Labor as recently as 2022, a position entrusted only to Hamas members?[63] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No as you never linked to it. You listed the Times of Israel, Newsweek, and The Jewish Chronicle. In any case it seems like you and Unbandito are discussing that in more detail, so I will leave that discussion to both of you. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a lot of interpretations. Let's use the same one as Palestine Chronicle: Did Lindsey Graham call for “nuclear weapons” to be used against the people of Gaza in order to end the ongoing war? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

"It should be like Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Get it over quick" are the words he spoke. The obvious interpretation, and a perfectly reasonable one, is that he suggested the nuclear option but, since we are not mind readers, we cannot be sure of his intention. Given the circumstances, it is a dangerous thing to be unclear about. Burrobert (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Those words were from Tim Walberg not Lindsey Graham. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes my mistake. Al Jazeera said it was Lindsey Graham when linking to the video, although the video itself clearly says it is Tim Walberg's voice. According to al Jazeera Graham's comments included that the US was right to "end [WWII]" by dropping two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that Israel must be given "the bombs they need to end the war they can’t afford to lose". "I thought it was okay” when the US dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan. "To Israel, do whatever you have to do to survive as a Jewish state". Elsewhere al Jazeera summarised Graham's comments by saying he "previously suggested that Israel would be justified in using nuclear weapons in Gaza". Burrobert (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Same one as Palestine Chronicle? The second sentence is: He implied that Israel should drop nuclear bombs over Gaza. That falls in line with what I cited above. There is a difference between your words and the words in the article from my viewpoint. Where in the article is your interpretation based on? --Super Goku V (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

do not actively participate in wars nor are they paid by the militaries they are covering, Hamas is not simply a military, it is the government of Gaza. That sort of misleading argument runs through the entirety of the initial post here. nableezy - 15:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Working with someone who was holding hostages at home is bad enough, but what is more important for us is how the outlet reacts to such an event. Far from acknowledging the issue, they immediately demoted Aljamal from "a correspondent for The Palestine Chronicle" (on June 9) to a mere "contributor for c (on June 10) right after the raid in which he was found to have held hostages. This kind of manipulation clearly means that this is not a reliable source. Alaexis_¿question? 21:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• I don't really have an opinion about "The Palestine Chronicle" (I am not familiar with it); just noting that having a COI wrt to the IP area is rife, especially among US journalist. It is so I wonder if anyone gets a job covering the conflict in the The New York Times or Bloomberg News without a COI? Ethan Bronner, Isabel Kershner and David Brooks all have sons serving in the Israeli army, and it is OK to use them as a source/opinion about Israel/IDF? Huldra (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with Chess and Alaexis. Clearly this is not a reliable source. Coretheapple (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Is this considered an SPS?

[64] Heritage et al is a blog run by Auckland Library employees. There was a thread on WP:NZWNB but I don't believe it adequately addressed whether it would be considered self-published or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Auckland Library would be a reliable publisher, so the blog wouldn't exactly be self-published. However it doesn't say who the authors of articles are, they are all by 'Auckland Libraries', so any claim they are by specific experts has to be viewed critically. They don't disclose any editorial controls, and I don't see any use by others.

Whether they are reliable hangs solely on them being published by Auckland Library, but Auckland Library are reliable. I would consider them marginally reliable. They mostly publish details of primary sources. I would avoid using them for WP:BLPs, or contentious statements. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm under the impression from what I can make out about the site that it is something done in an unofficial capacity, hence the third party host and lack of explained editorial process.

>However it doesn't say who the authors of articles are, they are all by 'Auckland Libraries'

It does at the bottom of some e.g. [65] and [66]. Traumnovelle (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I missed that, odd place to put the author details.

I'm pretty sure it's an official blog, for instance it's link to from their official site[67]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The description of it and no mention of an editor suggests to me it is a more informal thing, I could be wrong here I just fail to see any evidence of fact checking and moderation here. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC OurCampaigns

Currently, OurCampaigns is listed as an unreliable source. Should it also be deprecated or even blacklisted to prevent its continued use and allow for mass removal? Wowzers122 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There are currently nearly 4,000 instances of it being cited as a source on Wikipedia, not including map files that list it as their source in the description. The site's FAQ says:

OurCampaigns is an internet community formed in 2002 to discuss politics and elections. It is a collaborative website which allows users to post messages and links, earn points by predicting the outcomes of future elections, and enter historical election information. The website is built by the members as they enter site content.

When you create an account, you are able to post messages. With good solid participation in this area, the website owner (Randy) or others with high enough access may increase your access to more functions of site creation. This will enable you to help make the website more comprehensive and useful for other people who are interested in politics. This is the true power of the website.

OurCampaigns (OC) is also a web community. The users become a small e-family, which means that family dynamics come into play in the discussions. Be quick to forgive, slow to take offense, and quick to admit an error. Most of all, enjoy your time at OC!

Previous discussions:

• Jan 2009: Post suggesting it be removed from all articles
• Sep 2010: "looks like an open Wiki"
• July 2014: points to request for blacklist, declined because "site is dead"
• Dec 2017: brief discussion
• May 2020: discussion that leans toward reliable for election results, but some reservations stated
• Feb 2021: RfC that elapsed; consensus seems to indicate generally unreliable, disagreement over blacklisting; archived without closure
• April 2021: RfC that put OurCampaigns on WP:RSPS as "generally unreliable"

To me, it should be blacklisted. I used to be okay with its inclusion in articles, even adding it to articles myself, as there's not many sources for older elections (actually there is and I'll get to that) and they provide data sources for most of their pages. Recently, I was gifted United States Congressional elections, 1788-1997: the official results of the elections of the 1st through 105th Congresses by a fellow wikipedian, which I have started replacing OurCampaigns with since its actually reliable. The first article I've done this with is the 1830–31 United States House of Representatives elections (which cut it down by 13,000+ bytes, yippe). To my disappointment, the book doesn’t include county returns, which was shocking because most OurCampaigns pages cite that book as their only source, yet also include a county map. For example, the page for the IL At-Large election cites only that book as its source but somehow also has a map. Where did they get that information? For all I know, it could've been completely madeup.

In addition to its maps lacking any source, OurCampaigns frequently gets information wrong. In some cases, it’s a minor discrepancy, with numbers being slightly off, but in others, it's egregious. Again, using the IL At-Large page as an example, there are two more candidates listed than are reported in the source: "James Dunkin" and "Write-In Nonpartisan." Where they come from? They're not in the source provided.

Another egregious example is with the 13 trials for MA Essex North. In the first trial, the book lists Caleb Cushing as running as an independent against the National Republican candidate, before becoming the National Republican candidate in the later trials (the page again has the book as its only source and this time doesn't even incldude a page number. It's page 97 for the first trial and then page 100 for the other 12.) And on the MA Bristol page for the first trial, the page gives Russel Freeman 48%, when he is only given 42% in the book.

My final example for its blacklisting is a now-blocked (thankfully) IP editor that was going around replacing reliable sources with OurCampaign and Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections (who I will get to in a separate discussion for another time) sources. Specifically, I'd like to mention this edit to the 1864 United States presidential election in Kansas where Cheeseborough is shown as a separate candidate for president from the two candidates, like on the OurCampaigns and Atlas sources, even though he was only a candidate for the electoral college on the National Union ticket.

There's really no reason to use this source. If an editor needs information for an election article, they should seek out reliable sources, maybe even those cited by OurCampaigns. For election data, I recommend A New Nation Votes, a website created by Phil Lampi and run by the American Antiquarian Society, for any election before 1826 (it includes county returns). For any election from 1838-1914, the Tribune almanac and political register (it includes county returns). The varius Congressional Quarterly's Guide to US elections such as the ones on archive.org (whenever they get it working again). For any gubernatorial election, Dubin's US Gubernatorial Elections, 1776-1860 (also on archive.org) (it includes county returns). I have access to Dubin's US Gubernatorial Elections, 1861-1911, United States Presidential Elections, 1788-1860, along with US Congressional Elections, 1788-1997, and I know someone with Party Affiliations in the State Legislatures: A Year by Year Summary, 1796-2006, most of which include county returns and that I can send you pages of through discord. Wowzers122 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blacklisting or deprecation seems overkill. It's already on WP:RSPS as generally-unreliable. It's a user-generated source, just like Wikipedia, IMDB, Discogs, etc. It's easily available online, and lazy amateur Wikipedians are of course more likely to cite freely available user-generated sites than a history book by some forgotten scholar. Replace with better sources when possible. But unless you personally have a grudge with the site, I see no reason for further escalation. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Posting a source to RSP

Hi editors. I’m posting here to ask if someone will add Bloody Elbow to the RSP list for its content prior to March 2024 based on an RfC and two prior posts that found it to be generally unreliable. [68], [69], [70]. While not attracting wide participation, the RfC (which I started) and at least one of the two discussions meet the specific WP:RSPCRITERIA for minimum participation: For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. I may have a COI since I am a paid consultant for WhiteHatWiki, whose clients include One Championship, which was covered by Bloody Elbow. Bloody Elbow is cited as a source on the One Championship page, where it is used inappropriately as an unreliable blog. So even though the discussions on the merits are concluded, I think an independent editor should prepare and post the RSP summary. There is a distinction between the blog pre-March 2024, and the site under new owners since then, which needs to be part of the description. If other editors think the RSP needs to be handled differently, or think I should just do it, please discuss. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

As you started all of these discussions for the sole purpose of adding the source to the RSP I would opposed this. Either way this is a discussion for WT:RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m not opposed to putting this on Talk for PS. But it's just about one source, not changes to the policies of PS. So I think some might see it as not a matter for WT:RSP. Nonetheless, I’m going to withdraw this for the time being here and move it as you suggested. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Please consider this request withdrawn. I will come back and add the link to the new discussion. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Per @ActivelyDisinterested, the discussion has been moved here. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The Joe Rogan Experience

Over at Graham Hancock, @Bill the Cat 7: has argued that an appearance by Hancock on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast is a reliable source [71] for the following statement Hancock has strongly rejected allegations that he is a racist, a white supremicist, as well as other defamatory accusations by the SAA Archaeological Record, saying he was "personally hurt badly...wounded badly". [72]. For context, the article already states Hancock has rejected allegations that he is racist cited to the New Republic (a reliable source). I think that while obviously statements on podcasts can be used for non-controversial non-self serving information per WP:BLPSPS, that the podcast is not usable to call the accusations by the SAA defamatory, which I also think is a WP:TONE issue. As far as I can tell, the SAA did not actually call him a racist or white supremacist (see the letter they sent [73]), and therefore the addition by Bill the Cat 7 misrepresents what the SAA actually said. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It's such an obvious BLP violation that it's not worth spending more words and time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the "BLP vio" framing is confusing, It makes it seem like the BLP vio is against Hancock when it is not. I definitely disagree with the addition and think it's essentially flat out wrong and effectively soapboxing, but calling the statement by the SAA, an organisation not a living person, "defamatory" is not necessarily an obvious BLP vio, though I understand how it could be reasonably understood as a BLP vio against Daniel H. Sandweiss, the president of the SAA who signed the letter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Please link rv in question. While I think editors refer to WP:Mandy often inappropriately, this is a good example where it's unnecessary to say 'I'm not a racist', precisely because the very next sentence is the slightly-more-substantial statement, "expressed support for native rights". The former says nothing (and really often just makes the BLP subject sound ignorant and defensive), while the latter is at least somewhat informative and may get the reader to actually click the source if they have any interest. As you point out, this is not an RS issue. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

On SAA defamation, if the podcast doesn't firmly support it, that's a WP:Verifiability problem. (We don't have a V noticeboard, and we really need one.) Obviously you can't say something disputable or controversial that's not explicit in the source, before even considering RS. (I replied to the initial post too quickly.) SamuelRiv (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the Joe Rogan Experience making statements about Hancock, this is Hancock making statements about themself in an interview. So this is less WP:SPS/WP:BLPSPS and more WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB (the two are duplicates policy statements) as Hancock is talking about themself.
It's reliable for Hancock statements about Hancock. Editors on the talk page should decide if it's self-serving or due for inclusion per WP:MANDY, but that's NPOV not reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's entirely WP:ABOUTSELF – allegations that he is a racist, a white supremicist, as well as other defamatory accusations by the SAA Archaeological Record is a statement about something other than himself. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry you're correct, only this denial would be reliable not the details of what he was denying. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)