Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

What is the reliability of Electronic Intifada?

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

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

• Option 2: The previous discussion on the Electronic Intifada (EI) was not a particularly sophisticated discussion and needs revisiting: it was not a formal RFC, and the opening statement was somewhat rambling, but one key takeaway is that EI does not appear to have generated serious concerns about its adherence to factual accuracy. Media bias fact check is not a reliable source, but is a usefully indicative resource, and it "could not find any instance where EI directly failed a fact check from major fact checking sources". The site goes on to note that only rates "Mostly Factual" as opposed to "High" in terms of its reporting "due to a lack of transparency regarding funding, as well as strongly loaded emotional wording that may be misleading – so again, pertaining to bias, not factual error. EI is distinctly biased (as all media sources are) – this is certain – and this was the principle charge laid against it in the previous discussion, but bias ≠ unreliable, per WP:BIASEDSOURCES, but merely demands attribution. In the case of EI, the direction of its bias, and its specificity to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so obvious that it hardly bears mentioning, but option 2 allows for the formal caveating of the source and noting the attribution requirement. I would note that the first naysayer in the last discussion was the now notorious sock puppeteer User:Icewhiz wielding a Huffington Post opinion piece as the only evidence of factual issues, and, per WP:HUFFPOCON, Huffington Post contributions have themselves been deemed unreliable (in a subsequent 2020 RFC). Many of the following votes merely cite the source's bias, which again, should be addressed through attribution, but does not relate directly to reliability. There are a couple of editorial issues that are drummed up, including a piece from 2008 with a misleading quote that has since been caveated at the bottom of the piece, and another quibbled-over piece regarding a statement and its attribution dating to 2002. However, that in 2018 the best evidence of EI's unreliability that could be drummed up are some relatively isolated poorly attributed statements from 2002 and 2008 suggests to me that the evidence of factual inaccuracy is very threadbare indeed. WP:GUNREL means "generally" unreliable, not demonstrably unreliable once every decade or so. I'm not sure I've seen a bar as high as this applied to any source. To maintain the GUNREL rating for EI, a more serious discussion is required, and some significantly more substantial and damning evidence needs to be provided sustaining the charges of factual inaccuracy or manipulation, as opposed to merely lambasting it for its bias, which is utterly transparent – if only in its name alone, with which it really wears its heart on its sleeve about its leaning. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MBFC is not a useful way of gauging source reliability. It is the opinion of one random guy, no different to the opinion of the average Wikipedia contributor. That said, I have no opinion on the reliability of this publication. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4: Existing consensus is that the source is generally unreliable for facts, as discussed, for example, in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_250#Electronic_Intifada_(Again). This source is not only extremely biased but also has a very poor reputation for fact-checking. There were plenty of examples brought up in previous discussions. The fact that the website is cited in existing articles, usually for opinions with attribution, has no relevance to its tendency, or lack thereof, to provide accurate and trustworthy facts. Citing these kinds of sources for matters of fact would compromise Wikipedia's reputation as a trustworthy reference. There is also strong consensus that The Electronic Intifada is a partisan source, although this is independent of its reliability. If something is worthy of publishing in Wikipedia, then there will surely be better RS options. Marokwitz (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marokwitz: If you are saying it is generally unreliable, why have you said option 4, which is deprecation - something else. To deprecate a source, you need to provide some justification, not just your impression based on old, very outdated evidence, part of which was countered in the prior discussion, and which was further discussed in my statement. You have not progressed the discussion on the detail in and way, but merely opined in it. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Al Mayadeen and Press TV are very similar to Electronic Intifada. In comparison, the tabloid Daily Star (UK), though not a top-tier source, is considered more reliable. These three have been deprecated due to their one-sided reporting and loose approach for fact checking. Examples I saw recently in EI include coverage of Israa Jarbis where Electronic Intifada fails to mention she has seriously injured a police officer; relying on a debunked community-noted tweet by Twitter user SyrianGirl as a source in a recent article; and reporting on helicopters shooting at Nova partygoers based on a Haaretz article, while failing to disclose the police's rebuttal of this claim that was published on the same day.

  Overall, evidence shows that the site has a non-existent approach to fact-checking and publishing formal error corrections. Publishing the truth doesn't seem to be a priority compared to advocacy of a specific narrative, thus I believe it should be deprecated to save our editors' time. Marokwitz (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Evidence stands taller with some actual links for verification. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No consensus. No statements made by the source have been given by the opener of the RfC. What are we supposed to evaluate here? jp×g🗯️ 23:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 - it publishes mostly opinion, and where that opinion is by an expert in the field it should be able to be used. But for its news reporting, it is reporting on other outlets reports. I would say, as I did in the last discussion, that when they report something it will usually be found in other sources, otherwise I place it basically on the opposite end of Arutz Sheva and would not use it as a source for facts. nableezy - 23:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 - A) Electronic Intifada is a partisan news site that has a recent and long history of biased partisan reporting and appears to be pursuing political goals through its newspapers.

It also appears that it seems to support armed struggle and removal of organizations deemed terrorist by Western countries from terror lists.

In August 2020, Electronic Intifada published an article by Samidoun coordinator Khaled Barakat, there they wrote “Association with the Palestinian armed resistance and its political parties is not a cause for shame or a justification for repression…boycott campaigns and popular organizing are not alternatives to armed resistance but interdependent tactics of struggle. Any meaningful defense of the Palestinian people must clearly uphold the right to resist colonialism by all means, including armed struggle – and support efforts to remove Palestinian resistance groups from lists of ‘terrorist organizations.’”

Ali Abunimah, the site’s co-founder and current executive director, stated the following regarding Zionism : “one of the worst forms of anti-Semitism [sic] in existence today” and claims that it is the “continuation in spirit” of the Holocaust. Abunimah has compared Israel to Nazi Germany [1] , he also commented the following on a Holocaust survivor (called Elie Wiesel a “moral fraud and huckster”).

Furthermore, from an article in 18 January 2023 it appears the EI supports the incorporation of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, considered terrorist organizations by US, EU... into the PLO.

"But for that storm to sweep away the old, it needs direction. So far, Palestinian discontent with their leaders has not thrown up any clear alternative strategy behind which parties and new political forces can agree to unite.

Any such strategy needs to answer several crucial questions, notably what outcome to seek and how best to get there, how to unite the main factions behind a new vision for Palestinian liberation and how to ensure that Palestinians in occupied territory can endure under different political conditions.

It will also need to find a way to incorporate Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other factions considered “terror groups” in the west into the PLO while managing the diplomatic and financial fallout."

In November 2022, EI hosted a podcast called “How Zionists collaborated with the Nazis.” in the podcast, “Zionists during that time not only were not bothered about the Holocaust, they actively tried to stop anyone who wanted to provide a refuge from doing so.”

In August 2022, Abunimah has said the following in an interview : “Israel always has to kill Palestinians because it is an illegitimate settler-colonial regime that faces constant resistance from the people whose land it is occupying, colonizing and stealing…the regular shedding of Palestinian blood is a necessary component of maintaining the existence of Israel.”

In June 2021, EI Associate Editor Nora Barrows participated in a conference, “Challenging Apartheid in Palestine: Reclaiming the Narrative, Formulating A Vision,” hosted by the Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University. It was reported that sponsors, participating and conference , were linked to various terror groups, including, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

In conclusion, Option 4 is the most relevant, considering EI's published content both historically as concluded in previous Reliable Sources discussions as well as recently as shown above; therefore one assumes that this source meets the criteria of Deprecation. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Homerethegreat: I'm sorry. What is the point behind the quotations above? You just quote passages without making any points about how they relate to reliability. "one assumes that this source meets the criteria of Deprecation." - don't assume: assumption was the problem with the prior discussion, and now you're copy-pasting the problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. All the above shows is that EI's ideological leaning is pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. Opinions are always a matter of debate and can't be used for fact anyway (given WP:RSEDITORIAL) and you haven't shown any evidence of getting the facts wrong. VR _talk 15:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 Features section only, anything else only if it is a subject matter expert, and always with attribution. I don't believe that this source is guilty of falsification but some material is fairly heavily biased, so use with due care and attention.Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3. They don't seem to do much original reporting. I give them 3 rather than 4 for the odd story that might serve as a useful justification for a statement, but I cannot see that happening very often. Most of their articles seem to be either one-sided reinterpretation of the news reported elsewhere or personal opinions. Epa101 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad RFC Where is the prior discussion? Why is this going to a RfC without a recent discussion or a discussion of how this source is being used? We need examples of misuse before starting a RfC.

Springee (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 (possibly 2): There are a number of major issues with EI, which it is better to see as a group blog rather than a news site. First, it does not adequately distinguish between opinion and news (it has a category "features" which has /news in its URL and a category "opinion and analysis" with /opinion in the url; both of these are mainly opinion).The simple additional consideration would be to treat all articles as opinion pieces and therefore attribute. Second, it rarely presents new factual information. The "features" pieces by guest contributors in Palestine count as reportage, which are the most useful and fact-based articles, but the "features" pieces by their own (mostly US-based) team are second-hand analysis of material reported elsewhere. I would say that this secondary material should not be used citing them but rather that the original source should be used if and only if it's reliable (many of its sources are very unreliable, e.g. deprecated Grayzone), and that EI is not sufficiently reliable for it to count towards assessing noteworthiness. (Unsurprisingly, disinformation and conspiracy sites also republish EI articles. E.g. David Icke's website carried an EI article "How the Israel lobby fakes anti-Semitism" by Asa Winstanley.[2]) Third, I think that this is one of those cases where bias and reliability bleed into each other: EI frequently goes into conspiracy theory territory (this is especially true of its associate editor Asa Winstanley).[3] For instance, its support of antisemitic conspiracy theorist David Miller has led to its reportage being described as antisemitic by the Community Security Trust (CST),[4] and CST and anti-fascist researchers Hope Not Hate have described its reporting of Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party as conspiracy theory.[5] Winstanley frequently appears on Iran's PressTV, on a show produced by David Miller dedicated to antisemitic conspiracy theories.[6] Fourth, I think there might be instances where it can be seen to have been actively dishonest. In 2011, along with the Guardian, it falsely claimed that the CST had made up some quotes; the Guardian corrected their story but EI didn't.[7] Several right-wing monitors (CAMERA, HonestReporting, etc) have presented further examples, but I'm reviewing those as I don't see them as reliable sources either. I'll come back here when I have, and if these claims are compelling I'd say option 3 for definite, otherwise option 2 might be fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Couple more data points. 1. Here are three biased (right-wing), probably unreliable and slightly outdated sources itemising several issues with EI: NGO Monitor,[8] HonestReporting,[9] CAMERA.[10] It's hard to disentangle political criticisms from exposing inaccuracies there, so I'll leave these for other editors to review themselves. 2. I hadn't realised the extent to which EI is integrated with sources that we deprecate. For instance, it heavily uses Al-Mayadeen as a source,[11][12] it is in turn hosted by Al-Mayadeen,[13] it gives a frequent platform to Max Blumenthal of Grayzone,[14] its staff also contribute to Sputnik, ZeroHedge, Russia Insider, MintPress, etc,[15] and are used as talking heads by Sputnik.[16] In this PolitiFact fact check of a fake news story circulated in the current Gaza conflict, by a far right anti-vaxxer, EI was one of the sources he shared, but the fact check does not actually describe the EI article as false. 3. On the other hand, I've found a couple of instances of its use as a source by reliable sources: Columbia Journalism Review from 2010,[17] Associated Press from 2013,[18] and India Today recently.[19] BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm mainly interested in if EI has been guilty of false reporting or antisemitism, and I tried following your first few links and I didn't get the sense. First, I'd take CST's allegations against EI with a grain of salt; given that CST believes anti-zionism=antisemitism they are the ideological opponents of EI. And as you correctly pointed out, HonestReporting, CAMERA etc also have an axe to grind against EI. VR _talk 15:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 per Nableezy and Bob above, and Alaexis below. While not outright lying (as far as I'm aware), and while yes, all sources are biased, EI's partisan to the point that its usefulness can be heavily questioned (see exaggeration, loaded language, reliance on questionable sources, omission of certain details, and so on) and most if not all of its factual reporting can be found in far more reliable, less-outright-partisan sources. I'm also not sold by the proposer's usage of MBFC, which they themselves bluntly state isn't entirely reliable. The Kip 08:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Would also like to emphasize the latter bits of what Bob's written - the heavy reliance on already-deprecated sources such as Grayzone and Al-Mayadeen is worrying, and I could probably be convinced to vote for deprecation here as well. The Kip 05:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3, see my comments below re the lack of separation between opinion and news and various outrageous claims made by the source. No evidence has been presented that changed my opinion in either direction. Alaexis_¿question? 08:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3

EI is an overtly biased outlet and as pointed out by other editors, it deploys conspiratorial websites as its sources. This makes that website unreliable. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4. Mostly-opinion sites that cite debunked tweets should not be used in WP. All the true info EI has is better reported by other sources. It should not be used. Zanahary (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One debunked tweet has been mentioned - if there are others; perhaps you could make mention of them. However, one embedded (not even voiced) debunked tweet alone does not demonstrate repeat inaccuracy and is far from approaching cause for deprecation. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 4, unreliable and slanted beyond repair. if EI is the only source where someone can find something covered, it has likely been fabricated. ValarianB (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3. The outlet has the word "intifada" in the name. That alone makes it clear this is an option 3. Cursory reading of the sources provided by Homerethegreat makes it obvious this is far too biased to be trusted. Citing it in an article would be like citing Stormfront. The reason why we don't cite biased websites that support violent terrorists is because they have a very strong incentive to lie. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2. Per Iskander323's discussion point below it seems like at least some of the content EI publishes is well-sourced and journalistic and given that reputable journalists publish with EI it seems unlikely that they publish outright fabrications as if they are news. The organization overall has a clear agenda, but it is important to recognize that that many other sources taken as reliable are likely either to lack coverage of Palestinian issues or to (intentionally or not) have coverage slanted against Palestinians. Groceryheist (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 based on publishing stuff like this. Cheers, Number 57 21:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the specific point of inaccuracy that is being pointed to here that is indicative of unreliability? An uncommon, but by no means isolated headline take, regardless of the level of controversy is not – in of itself – anything. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Mondoweiss (your link) isn't a reliable source either. The mass rape claims are agreed upon by all the reliable sources I could find. The BBC, NBC news, The New York Times, AP news, and The Washington Post agree that there is evidence that rape happened. When extremely pro-Palestinian biased sources such as Mondoweiss or Electronic Intifada construct fictional realities where Palestinians didn't rape Israelis, because that is inconvenient for their POV, that's when we consider those sources unreliable due to their ideological bias. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Compare like with like. Mondoweiss is fine with attribution (they don't make stuff up) and your links do not support "mass rape" (and are in addition hedged about with one caveat and another) which is what M. is saying there is a lack of evidence for. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Since this isn't a discussion on Mondoweiss I'll avoid encouraging the tangent further, but EI lied that it was the Israeli govt that did October 7th. [20] [21] There's also the borderline Holocaust denial where EI lauds a book that blames Zionist Jews for the Holocaust. [22] EI also supported the October 7th attacks. [23]

  IMHO it's pretty simple. This is an identical situation to The Daily Shoah or The Daily Stormer. EI pushes conspiracy theories, deny well-evidenced atrocities (mass rapes), engage in Holocaust inversion (especially by saying the Jews brought it among themselves), and even supported October 7th on that very day. That makes it an unreliable source. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is far closer to a misrepresention of those pieces than it is to an accurate summary of their contents. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 at least and probably Option 4. The specific falsehoods mentioned above aside, EI has a long reputation of providing misleading coverage, and if used, needs to be used with caution if at all. There's nothing, if at all, that EI would report on or cover that a more mainstream RS, even one that is biased, would not. When called out the outlet does not reliably issue corrections, but in some cases doubles down. For example, misquoting a misleading and incendiary quote from an Israeli official, then claiming others misquoted first instead of doing basic journalism and seeking to verify [24], mistranslations of Hebrew interviews that make exceptional claims [25] (then portraying it as reported fact instead of opinion on its Twitter [26]. It frequently relies on conspiracy rags like The Cradle and The Greyzone for single-sources and misleading reporting. There are many other examples. Editors voted to deprecate another activist outlet MEMRI for similar malpractice, even though EI pruportedly holds itself to a higher journalistic standard. I have no problem with biased sources, but there are far more and better ones than EI, which is more activist than journalist and misleading at best. Longhornsg (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you cite any RS that have accused EI of false or misleading reporting? VR _talk 15:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4 per Longhornsg. It's too biased and unreliable to be used. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 - Per @Marokwitz. Dovidroth (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 Biased, unreliable, advocacy website. Coretheapple (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 - Hell no, for the reasons expressed above. Neutrality^talk 23:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 per @Nableezy. Yr Enw (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4: Biased website with blatant activism. Let'srun (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The regular discussions are about the sources in context, but the RFCs are general and a simple neutral question with the four options. See the other RFCs further up the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point stands. EI is cited as a source in several hundred articles, so its status at RSP has not presented an obstacle to its use. Is there an actual, live issue about its use or misuse as a source? Otherwise a new RFC is not in order. Banks Irk (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion was not a formal RFC with the four normal choices; Option 2, i.e. a halfway house was not presented; and the discussion was swamped by accounts now blocked as sock puppets/puppeteers. It was a not a level of discussion that should stand as the bar for this source. Obviously being labelled as GUNREL has a long-term impact on whether the source is deemed usable, with or without caveats. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, is there a way to distinguish opinions from news published by the EI? E.g., is this article an opinion piece or news [27]? Here are some of the quotes from it (a) But we are to believe the Israelis had no idea [of the October 7 attack that] was planned right under their noses? They probably knew. And they waited for it., (b) The vast network of Zionist organizations acts as appendages of the Israeli state that extend into all our lives around the world. Alaexis_¿question? 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the url from what I can tell, but other than by style, each piece has a short author bio at the end. The example you've shared has a conversational tone that betrays it as clear opinion, but beyond that it is attributed to an external party - the director of a literature festival. This analysis, on the other hand, is attributed to various contributors and "Asa Winstanley is an investigative journalist and associate editor with The Electronic Intifada", so we know it's in-house. This colour piece appears to be not in-house, but from a journalist and presumably commissioned, but it's a colour piece, so not news. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I assume that the analysis is the kind of content you'd like to use on Wikipedia. It's long and uses all kind of sources which range from very reliable to complete garbage, but these are some of the highlights

• Non-sequitur bordering on fake news. How is an opinion of a retired officer who did not take part in the fighting becomes a confirmation that Israel killed most Israeli civilians?

• Opinion-piece-style statements in the supposed analysis piece: [Josep Borrell] had no regard for the dead women, children and elderly of Palestine, not to mention the men.
• Extreme bias: the hostages are described as detainees in the custody of Palestinian fighters
• Usage of dodgy sources: they mention an anonymous letter published by Mondoweiss

I wouldn't support deprecating the EI, unless there are proven examples of publishing deliberate falsehoods, but it falls far short of reliable source standards. Alaexis_¿question? 11:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I set out by noting that its bias is clear. The question remains not one of its opinion, but one of factual inaccuracy. And, e.g., the "one of the highest level confirmations" statement, while clearly leaning into a viewpoint, is still couched. Any exceptional claims also remain covered by WP:ECREE. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to re-open the debate on the reliability score given to the Daily Telegraph as a perennial source. It's currently on "Generally reliable". Epa101 (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that there was a debate on the Telegraph in December 2022. This will focus on rulings by the Independent Press Standards Organisation since then. I have found seven cases when either the Daily Telegraph or telegraph.co.uk was given a sanction on a point of accuracy. I feel that its "Generally reliable" status is outdated. It has drifted outwith the mainstream with its vaccine scepticism. I know that their opinion on vaccines is outwith the considerations on this board, but I mention it to illustrate that this is not the "newspaper of record" of the past. I presume that there is only a realistic chance of its going down one rank, so I'll just put two options.

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations

Exhibit 1 They said that a court had overruled the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. This was not true.

Exhibit 2 They said that Sweden's spending on COVID-related interventions was less than a tenth as much as the UK's. This was not true.

Exhibit 3 They said that there is evidence that home-schooled children do not receive a good education, but then failed to produce the evidence when challenged.

Exhibit 4 They published inaccurate numbers on the number of people allowed to stay in the country under the UK's schemes in combatting modern slavery.

Exhibit 5 They said that a gas-turbine generator that was small enough to go on the back of a lorry would produce the same electricity, faster and more reliably, than 10 offshore wind turbines the size of the Eiffel Tower. This is not true.

Exhibit 6 They said that doctors and nurses were receiving 9% pay increases. This was not true.

Exhibit 7 They said that the decrease in deportation of criminals was linked to an increase in legal challenges on the grounds of human rights, but they could not back this up. You'll not be surprised to know that I vote for Option 2:. I know that all newspapers make mistakes, but I have two simple reasons: first, many of the British newspapers with lower reliability scores have made fewer mistakes in the same time period; second, the mistakes show a systematic bias towards the political right and I do not believe that this pattern could be a coincidence of simple errors. Epa101 (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 with regard to any of its 'oppion' pieces. The issue goes beyond just making mistakes, and in Exhibits 3–7 they argued for there incorrect figures/details until IPSO rules against them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1: Generally reliableLukewarmbeer (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 The source is clearly biased in terms of its right-wing perspective, but no news organisation is free of bias. However, the examples listed above do not detract from its reliability for our purposes. Rulings of this nature occur frequently for UK news orgs. I will deal with them one by one:

Ruling 1 (Sturgeon GRB): This was an opinion piece in which the columnist made a factual error. It would not be used in Wikipedia. The paper published a correction.

Ruling 2 (Covid) Opinion piece, would not be used other than for the writer's opinion. IPSO-mandated correction published.

Ruling 3 (Homeschooling) Opinion piece, would not be used other than for the writer's opinion. IPSO-mandated correction published.

Ruling 4 (modern slavery) Article quoted a minister who made inaccurate statements, and complaint was only partly upheld. IPSO-mandated correction published.

Ruling 5 (gas turbines)Opinion piece, would not be used other than for the writer's opinion. IPSO-mandated correction published.

Ruling 6 (doctors pay claim) This piece has poor use of statistics, however, the body text was accurate and the only factually false section was the headline which could not be used per WP:HEADLINE,

Ruling 7Was inaccurate, but only in part, and was corrected by IPSO.

Only two articles could have led to misleading information making it into Wikipedia, and these were later corrected. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does it not matter that those two were only corrected after an IPSO ruling? If we say that corrections after an IPSO ruling erase the original error, then any newspaper that's a member of IPSO (i.e. the vast majority) would become a reliable source, since they all correct their errors when IPSO tell them to. Epa101 (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not all papers are regulated by IPSO, but the two that aren't are probably more reliable in any case. I fully agree that membership of IPSO does not make a paper reliable, but I don't see significant unreliable content here. These are mostly really borderline cases, and the amount of good sourcing we would lose by downgrading the telegraph is insane. We can't compare with the Mail which is unusable given the propagandist nature of its entire output, or even something like the Jewish Chronicle which published a large number of factually inaccurate stories on a single topic over a very short period . Boynamedsue (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, my suggested Option 2 does not put it on the same level as the Daily Mail. It would still be two levels above the Mail. There would be no need to delete every Telegraph reference: it just loses its golden image. On propaganda, it should be noted that its close links to Boris Johnson made it very partisan during his premiership, and it has gone outside the mainstream since Borus was ejected. It's not the Torygraph any more. Epa101 (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No consensus. I really think it's destructive to the project to constantly be having RfCs about "do you like this newspaper? YES, everything it says is automatically true or NO, everything it says is automatically false". In the real world of normal humans, there are always "considerations" when you write something and find sources to cite. Opinion pieces reflect opinions. Why do we have to have an official stance on them? jp×g🗯️ 23:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: My impression is that The Daily Telegraph is generally reliable for news reporting. As with other news sources, opinion pieces are not relevant to our evaluation of the source's reliability for factual reporting. Many news outlets do not fact-check their opinion pieces to the same standard as reporting; this is why WP:RSEDITORIAL says that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely reliable for statements of fact." —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Boynamedsue analysis is correct here. It's totally normal for a major newspaper with a lot of content to have IPSO complaints upheld and to issue corrections. Although IPSO is very imperfect, the fact the paper succumbs to regulation and acts on findings against it counts in its favour in terms of reliability. If there were a significant number of news. Given these corrections mostly relate to opinion and a headline and/or were only partially upheld shows that there is no cause to move from the current option 1 status. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1: no change - there seems no substantive change here to make for any change to the "Generally" reliable. IPSO issues had happened prior to the 2022 rating, and having another 7 problems among some hundreds or thousands of pieces since still seems "Generally" reliable. That they occurred in opinion pieces and were responded to by editorial staff seems further mitigation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 effectively per Mx. Granger. It seems most of the issues are with opinion pieces, which, besides having been IPSO-corrected, aren't typically relevant to our considerations of reliability. While biased, I don't see a reason to no longer consider it "generally" reliable. The Kip 08:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1. The issues were mostly with opinion pieces, and many cases are borderline (see Boynamedsue's analysis). Also, the initiator of the RfC failed to provide any evidence that these issues caused problems on Wikipedia. Alaexis_¿question? 09:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't think that I needed to. We didn't need to say that the Morning Star (opposite end of the political spectrum) is causing lots of problems on Wikipedia to give it a lower reliability score. Epa101 (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see the instructions at the top of this noticeboard. Alaexis_¿question? 21:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Option 2 All media outlets are biased, but this is one that wears it on their sleeve more than the best ones do. Reliable for mundane reporting, but any summary of complex events should be considered editorial. Sennalen (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1. Only 7 IPSO complaints about mostly opinion pieces? Our policies about reliable sources are clear that they're allowed to make a few mistakes as long as they have a working corrections policy. Voluntarily joining an arms' length self regulatory organization is exactly what we want sources to do. The Guardian and The Independent aren't members of IPSO, can we downgrade them? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 Generally Reliable largely per the analysis by Boynamedsue. Opinion pieces are already treated differently, and the handful of errors otherwise noted are not outside of the norm for pretty much any reputable news/media source. They have a right leaning editorial slant. Big deal. MSNBC leans left and has likely produced a similar level of mistakes. When it comes to factual reporting, for the most part they seem to have their act together. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 Boynamedsue's analysis shows that the content provided as evidence covers material that we wouldn't use anyway and official corrections were made where necessary – it's not a flawless publication, but what is? EddieHugh (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1/BADRFC It's pretty clear to me that downgrading the Telegraph to WP:MREL over this would be holding it to a ridiculously high double-standard. They issued corrections, it's fine. If it isn't, we should have an RFC to downgrade every media organization out there. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 is more reasonable. As stated by various editors above, all' sources require at least some 'other considerations', but there is nothing on current showing to prove that this news outlets is anything other than generally reliable. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 Sources that make twice as many mistakes haven't been downgraded. I don't see how this is any different Scorpions1325 (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is kind of the reliable source noticeboard equivalent of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yr Enw (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 As per above. Every news organisation has a political leaning, this is no different. Any errors were corrected when challenged by the appropriate authorities, just like any respectable media organisation would expect. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You haven't set this up as an RFC, WP:RFCOPEN explains how to do it properly. That will ensure that notifications are sent out, and the discussion is listed correctly. As an aside "Exhibit 1" doesn't say that "Nicola Sturgeon resigned as a result of the Bill" was untrue but rather that it was a unprovable statement of opinion, and "Exhibit 2" has the same link as "Exhibit 1". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Epa101, ping so you're aware. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies for not setting this up correctly. After more than 15 years on Wikipedia, I'm still making errors. Thanks also for your pointers on my mistake. Epa101 (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Epa101, please remove all of your argumentation to the discussion section and leave a neutral rfc statement at the top before this draws responses. As it is now it's a violation of WP:RFCNEUTRAL. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I'm moving it. I don't understand why some of the other notices on this Noticeboard don't have this structure that's being required here, but I'll move it anyway. Epa101 (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bad RFC Not only is this malformed, as noted above, but it is improper. The last RFC was only a year ago. All of the "evidence" consists of complaints about statements in editorial of opinion pieces, not the accuracy or inaccuracy of news reports. And none of them involved use of those opinion pieces as sources in a specific article here. A new RFC is not in order. Banks Irk (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    First, putting evidence in inverted commas is just childish. That is robust evidence. All of it is since the last decision, so it's all new. It all says that it's a matter of fact and not of opinion. Are you arguing that the IPCC is wrong to say that these are matters of fact? If so, you need a source for that, which is stronger than the IPCC's judgement. As regards how they're not used in a specific article, I don't think that is required for a judgement on a perennial source. There wouldn't be much point in having the ratings for each perennial source if we just judged each article on its individual merits. Why say that the Mirror, Morning Star, Mail, Sun, Express, etc. is less reliable in general by the Telegraph if we can just judge each article in each publication on its own merits? When we gave lower ratings to those publications, we didn't say that their inaccuracies had to occur in an article cited in a Wikipedia article. Epa101 (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree it's far too soon for another RFC Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any time period in which you're not allowed to make another suggestion? I didn't see this in the rules. I can understand that it would get annoying if the same person keeps making the same argument again and again, but I hope that my suggestion here is substantially different to the last one. The December 2022 debate was dominated by the Telegraph's coverage of trans issues. That comes into my first exhibit, but that is only one of seven. I would also note that this newspaper has changed in recent years. It has become more alt-right (e.g. on vaccines) and less conventionally Conservative Party; a rule that a source cannot be reconsidered for multiple risks missing changes such as this. Epa101 (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Several of these complaints appear to be with reference to opinion pieces in the Telegraph, which already would not usually be considered reliable for statements of fact per WP:RSOPINION. I think only three ([28], [29], [30]) are related to the Telegraph's news coverage, of which one ([31]) only rules that the headline was misleading: and per WP:RSHEADLINE headlines are already not a reliable source. So of the seven rulings initially cited, as far as I can make out only two are relevant to the question of the reliability of the Telegraph's news coverage. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, 4 is about false statements by a former minister that were correctly reported. Although that violates IPSO journalistic standards, rs policy does not say that news media could report false statements by politicians without fact-checking them. TFD (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree per Banks Irk BADRFC, and no need for a new RFC per Caeciliusinhorto and others that the examples offered are opinion pieces, not news, whose use is already covered by other guideline. I also note criticism of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) at that article, and wonder if there is any such body limiting freedom of published opinions in other countries (eg US). We have fact-checkers, for example, but no body that I'm aware of limiting the freedom to be wrong in your opinions. Short of defamatory publications, I wonder how many non-UK publications would by reduced to "restrictions apply" to their reliability if we included mistakes in their commentary and opinion sections; I suspect we'd be left with very few generally reliable sources if we scrutinized very opinion column in the US to the level that apparently the IPSO does. When fact-checking extends to opinion and commentary, rather than news, short of defamation, that would seem to limit freedom of expression, which includes the possibility of being wrong in your opinions. And if the UK has this IPSO body, why do they have such a horrific tabloid industry (confused)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You can search on their website for breaches, including whether a sanction was decided upon, against any newspaper that is a member (which is the vast majority). Note that the websites are listed separately from the paper, as some articles are only published online. If we compare to newspapers with a lower reliability rating in the same time period: the Daily Mirror/Sunday Mirror has 4, the Morning Star has 0, the Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday has 3, the Daily Express/Sunday Express has 3, the Sun [on Sunday] has 3 and the Daily Star [Sunday] has 0. I accept that some newspapers see the IPSO as insufficiently strict and have not joined, so we cannot compare with them. Still I think that there are enough member newspapers to make comparisons. I feel that the Daily Telegraph is living on old glory with its Wikipedia reputation. Epa101 (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of the complaints were about commentary pieces, which are not considered rs anyway. Also, the proposer does not provide any comparison with other broadsheets. If for example the Financial Times, Independent and Guardian had similar levels of complaints upheld against them, then we would be unfairly apply an impossible standard. In fact those papers are not even members of the IPSO, yet are considered rs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 17:16, November 24, 2023 (UTC)

The Independent is considered a bit of a fallen giant in Britain now and it is not considered alongside the other broadsheets any more, but nonetheless it has 0 rulings against it for accuracy in this time period. The Financial Times has 0 rulings in the same period. The Times has 3. Unlike other British newspapers with Sunday editions, the Sunday Times is still a very different newspaper from the Times, so I'll count that separately. The Sunday Times has 1. The Guardian is not a member of IPSO, so I cannot compare with that. These comparisons are limited, but the Telegraph has more than others considered. As you can see in my response to SandyGeorgia above, the perennial sources with lower reliability scores have had fewer sanctions for accuracy in this period. Epa101 (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It still reflects an odd sense of press freedom, given there is no such thing in the US to my knowledge; people are entitled to errors in their opinions, as long as they aren't defamatory. And given we have no such beast in the US, it makes no sense to penalize one UK paper for a controversial guardian of the press. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest leaving ideas of press freedom to one side, as that is a big can of worms. There are some restrictions in the USA that don't apply in the UK, such as the rules on foreign ownership. A lot of our national papers are owned by people with little connection to the UK. On its reliability, I'm not saying to treat it worse than every other newspaper. I'm questioning why we put it on a pedestal at present. My suggested Option 2 only knocks it down one rung. Epa101 (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say we should wait and see whether The Telegraph is acquired by the Emiratis (which is currently under discussion). Once that has happened and some time is passed, a RfC is probably appropriate considering the UAE's track record regarding freedom of the press. Cortador (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• FWIW, I'd put most British news outlets under Option 2 when it comes to GENSEX issues because there is a well-known culture of transphobia in the British press that has been covered by non-British sources, but that's probably a minority opinion; I should point out that Option 1 doesn't mean always reliable, just generally reliable; there are possible times where that generality can be overridden by specific concerns. With regards to the Telegraph... it's been on a slow downward slope for a long time, but I wouldn't change it from Option 1 to 2 just yet. Sceptre (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This source is being used in the Geometry Dash article to say that Apple ranked it x and x.

However it appears to be written by a "subscriber"? I am not sure if its that's WP:FORBESCON or not. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per list of perennial sources, only Forbes articles written by editor/Forbes staff are reliable. "Contributor" articles, including this one, are generally unreliable. Cortador (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that when this article first went up, the author was listed as a "contributor" rather than a "subscriber", so, while the latter term is not clear to me (former contributor? Someone who pays for contributor-like access?), yes, it gets treated like a contributor. However, that opens up a curious possibility: if someone who was previously a contributor gets taken on staff, do all their old posts get switched to be marked "staff"? If so, that would get unverified articles listed in aa way that we think they're reliable. Probably not a large concern, but it will nag at me... -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no. Qualifications aren't applied retroactively. Cortador (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concern is that Forbes might change their byline to "Forbes staff", even for stuff that they wrote as a contributor when they had no editorial controls or fact-checking applied to their work - since it seems like Forbes just has one byline for every person, which is changed everywhere (that is, retroactively on previously published works) if their status changes. Obviously we wouldn't want to consider their old work reliable, but we might not be able to distinguish them if Forbes provides no easy way to do so. --Aquillion (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is concerning. Unless there is evidence that all of a contributor's past articles have been fact-checked prior to the contributor being promoted to a staff writer, all of the articles that were written while the author was a contributor should be considered self-published. A web archive link to any one of an author's articles on Forbes.com or to the author's profile page (example) is sufficient to show that the author was a contributor, staff writer, or neither ("subscriber") at the time the page was archived. — Newslinger talk 15:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC) Edited 22:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Cortador and only use those listed as written by staff. Forbes has branched off and now has contributors, Forbes Council, etc., all of which are non-staff written submissions. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing some disagreement on Aaron Mate about a paragraph in the introduction based largely on Institute for Strategic Dialogue, which to my reading looks like some sort of advocacy group. Didn't see any previous discussion and I'm wondering if anyone would like to offer an opinion. It seems certain they are not neutral, but that's not the question. Would they be considered a reliable source to make statements like: among the 28 social media accounts, individuals, outlets, and organisations which it studied, Maté was the most prolific spreader of disinformation surrounding the war, including on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government (through the Guardian) and including one concerning what Maté called a cover-up by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons regarding the April 2018 Douma chemical attack (directly from the institute). Opinions? To my eyes this looks UNDUE, but here I'm asking about the source. BusterD (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would attribute it, but should be usable. No comment on the due weight issue as those are outside the scope of this noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron mate and Max Blumenthal are some of the most infamous conspiracy theorists in the West.

So these specific contents which you have quoted do not appear to be undue.

However, since the "Institute for Strategic Dialogue" itself is a biased think-tank affiliated with various Western governments, it should not be cited without proper attribution. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think attribution is generally a good practice with thinktanks, it's worth noting that ISD has a good reputation for non-partisan politics and rigorous research. It is a reliable source. It is heavily used as a source by reliable sources such as the Independent,[32] New Statesman,[33] RTE,[34] BBC,[35] Irish Examiner,[36] NYTimes,[37] NBC,[38] WaPo,[39] Guardian,[40] ABC,[41] TheConversation,[42] PBS,[43] Seattle Times,[44] DW,[45] Time,[46] VoA,[47] France24.[48]

The only negative comment I could see about them on several pages of Google News hits was from Electronic Intifada, currently being debated up this page with most editors considering it unreliable.

Re ShadowWarrior saying it is "affiliated with various Western governments", it's true it has declared funding funded by various governmental and intergovernmental bodies, including UN, EU, Council of Europe, and Australia, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Germany, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and US (along with private and philanthropic funders)[49] - but I wouldn't frame this as "affiliated with". BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a government organ, but from the sources you've given here I don't really see the case for it being a reliable source in its own right. It may be "nonpartisan" in the sense that it's not affiliated with a major political party -- but neither are the Presbyterian Church or Facebook or Philip Morris or Bill's Alligator Trappers, and we don't cite their press releases as fact either. It may well be the case that Bill's Alligator Trappers Inc. is a great weal of knowledge on where the major alligator hangouts are in Placid County, and indeed maybe Bill gets invited on the news to give some explanation whenever there's a story about alligators, but I would not say that this means everything he says is just legit to cite for whatever. jp×g🗯️ 16:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Institute for Strategic Dialogue is a political advocacy organization. The quality of the publications I've read from them is rather typical for this type of organization -- they're more like blog posts or op-eds or advertisements than scholarly papers. As an example, picked randomly from their website:

Legal frameworks must be applied consistently and law enforcement delivered evenly across ideological contexts. In the far-right context, we have not seen law enforcement applied evenly until recently in the UK and not at all in the US. Equal effort and attention must be focused on the proscription and disruption of far-right extremist groups as has been the case with Islamist groups.

[...]

Secondly, democracy promotion, cohesion work and investment in communities should all be done per se – and not under a security umbrella – but must receive the levels of funding required to make a difference.

The whole point of the document is to be a persuasive essay in favor of specific political actions and specific budget priorities. It seems somewhat facile to take their claims at face value -- any more than we'd accept and repeat claims from some random PDF named "Bill's_Alligator_Trappers_Inc._Fact_Sheet.pdf" that alligators were the number-one threat to public health in the US. If there are secondary sources that mention the ISD's analysis of a particular issue, it's worth mentioning that, but I don't think we should be citing them for claims of fact or using them to establish notability. jp×g🗯️ 15:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A recently published article in the Economist, When the New York Times lost its way, reports on some issues with the New York Times in the last few years, such as publishing what are essentially opinion pieces without labelling them as such, and making substantive changes to articles without notifying the readers with a note.

The internet rewards opinionated work and, as news editors felt increasing pressure to generate page views, they began not just hiring more opinion writers but also running their own versions of opinionated essays by outside voices – historically, the province of Opinion’s op-ed department. Yet because the paper continued to honour the letter of its old principles, none of this work could be labelled “opinion” (it still isn’t).

That was a weaselly adjustment – Cotton wrote about criminality, not “unrest” – but the article at least no longer unambiguously misrepresented Cotton’s argument to make it seem he was in favour of crushing democratic protest. The Times did not publish a correction or any note acknowledging the story had been changed.

I don't think this requires any immediate action, but I am posting it here as it might be of it interest to editors here. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 08:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One person disagreeing with a piece's conclusions (especially someone who, obviously, has a giant axe to grind with the Times on that particular issue) doesn't make a paper unreliable. --Aquillion (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it doesn't make the paper unreliable on it's own, but it's still a notable data point. It's not some one random person disagreeing, but a high-level subject matter expert, who's well-placed to make cogent criticism of the organization and how it functions, writing in a high-quality WP:RS. GretLomborg (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's long been my opinion that news sources are overrated and overused as sources on wikipedia. That said, I don't think an op ed published by the economist is a great source on the nyt's overall reliability. (t · c) buidhe 03:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree that he's a subject matter expert in this context; simply being an "insider" who formerly worked for the company, or in the industry, that he is now criticizing is insufficient - by that definition everyone with an axe to grind within an organization immediately becomes a subject-matter expert, and any journalist who wrote any opinion-piece about journalism would be a subject-matter expert. Subject-matter experts are people who have the equivalent of a PHD worth of knowledge about a topic area, not "worked there for four years, got fired for a 'significant breakdown in the editing process', and is still angry about it." As someone who is as clearly WP:BIASED on this topic as it is reasonably possible to be, I would honestly weigh Bennet's opinions here significantly less than a random person's. Lots of people have strong opinions about the direction the Times (or any major paper) should take with its coverage, often people with far less impetus for those opinions than being publicly and humiliatingly forced to resign; and certainly no source is flawless. But the fact is that Bennet's own argument here is self-defeating. If the relevant interpretations of the facts had merit then he would've been able to get them published as factual reporting rather than as his own personal opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. I propose to blacklist Verywell Fit for at least similar reasons as its sister Verywell sites by Dotdash Meredith. The perennial sources list states:

Due to persistent abuse, verywellfamily.com, verywellhealth.com, and verywellmind.com are on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used.

2. I propose to change the designation of Dotdash web sites from "No consensus" to at least one of "Generally unreliable", "Blacklisted", and "Deprecated" and at least with regard to health content.

An example SEO-optimized article currently on the home page of Verywell Fit has paid referral links and claims to rate the "best acupressure mats". This article falsely claims that these mats promote "the free flow of chi (Qi) energy", "prevent imbalances", and "boost circulation". It also relies on practitioners of acupuncture pseudoscience. The page also misleadingly claims that it has been "Medically reviewed" and "Fact checked".

Since Dotdash purchased Meredith and its assets like Time Magazine, it may be a good idea to try to have separate assessments of Dotdash-associated content from Meredith-associated content. I don't think Time Magazine should be considered generally unreliable.

Given the options, perhaps we can discuss before a more focused RFC. ScienceFlyer (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe classing all Verywell 'x' the same is a start, that way it won't be necessary to discuss each new one they setup. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScienceFlyer, you name multiple concerns, and I'm having trouble figuring out how this adds up. Let me give you a list:

• It's blacklisted: We blacklisted it because someone(s) spammed it. However, editor/spammer behavior doesn't make a source unreliable; people have spammed excellent sources into articles. (It's not common, but it does happen.)
• Verywell Fit is SEO-optimized: However, so are most commercially successful sources, including all the major newspapers (also Wikipedia, for that matter). Having competent website developers does not mean that the source doesn't have the characteristics of a reliable source, and being unconcerned about whether readers can find your site is not evidence that the source is somehow more noble or reliable. The first duty of a newspaper is to stay in business; everything else depends on that.
• It has paid referral links: So what? Wikipedia:We don't care what happens to your website. The presence of affiliate links is no better or worse than the presence of advertisements.
• Some pages have a POV you disagree with: Holding the right POV is not a sign of being reliable. (Also, anything that provides uneven or changing pressure on skin will "boost circulation", at least within the local area; see Intermittent pneumatic compression for a conventional medical approach to it. Or try www.verywellhealth dot com/how-pneumatic-compression-is-used-in-physical-therapy-5202654 if you want to see their take on it.)

For health-related content, very few lay-oriented websites are reliable sources. I don't think we need to have a special catalog of all the websites that aren't peer-reviewed review articles and medical school textbooks. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Other sources already covers that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, what she said. jp×g🗯️ 15:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transfermarkt is not considered as a reliable source but Footballdatabase.eu is. Let me explain how Footballdatabase works. It works the same way as Transfermarkt does : it is user-generated. The difference is that they have no verification process, and no source is asked when adding a new information, so clearly it is even less reliable than Transfermarkt. Now for the sake of consistency, I'm therefore asking for the 64000 links to Footballdatabase to be removed. And I also ask the community to acknowledge that this is not a reliable website. Thank you. Frenchl (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is user-generated, then it should not be used. GiantSnowman 18:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it has a forum, which is obviously user-generated, but I don't see where its other content comes from or how it is edited. If it is also UGC, it is not reliable. Banks Irk (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created an account and can see that users who buy credits can provide information. This is therefore UGC and is not reliable. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

64,000+!!!. Somebody's going to be busy removing these refs. Banks Irk (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bot can do it. Frenchl (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes life simpler and less tedious for all human editors. Try using Wikipedia:Bot requests explaining what needs to be done, then programming it will hopefully do it quicker than us removing them all at a guesstimate of one link per minute. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not reliable as per above, it's WP:UGC. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• please do not mass remove the links without attempting to replace them. It will just be havoc otherwise. GiantSnowman 09:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess that would mean my suggestion of doing a bot request will be scrapped because of the immediate above rsp. Replacing should be better if there was one available. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's more like 14,000. [50] Looking at the results in the first post, the search was "footballdatabase", not "footballdatabase.eu", and the majority of results were links to footballdatabase.com, which appears to be a completely different site. Still a formidable task. Banks Irk (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does weather fall under the "science" category for Fox news being unreliable. Nothing in this article [51] seems too off scanning through it. Also, do Fox weather and local Fox station fall under the same category as Fox as a whole. ✶Quxyz✶ 19:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. Fox News still employs editors and journalists, it's just that the bigwigs swoop in whenever the audience's beliefs do not align with reality. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this particular weather article isn't scientific, the things to watch for are climate denial, transphobia, etc. Andre🚐 15:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Miu language Source: [52] Wondering if this can be considered a reliable source. KaedenAwesome (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source. It's the website of a missionary society not experts. Self published anonymous articles. Banks Irk (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! KaedenAwesome (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence Johor Bahru was also the second largest GDP contributor among the first tier cities in Malaysia in 2010 uses this reference ("Urban Regeneration :The Case of Penang, Malaysia. Putting Policy into Practice" (PDF). Khazanah Nasional: 10. 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 January 2016 – via The chart of the GDP contributor is in Page 10.).

It seemed like a Powerpoint slide of questionable accuracy and/or reliability, not to mention it is likely outdated. It was never mentioned where the data for city GDP came from. Official GDP data in Malaysia are available down to state-level only, not smaller-level divisions like cities (https://www.dosm.gov.my/portal-main/release-content/gross-domestic-product-gdp-by-state-). Seeking some review on this. Slothades (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Slothades (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:RS requires a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, if you cannot find some evidence that this reputation exists, you should not cite the source (imo). (t · c) buidhe 11:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, @Buidhe: The sentence was added by some other user [53], and it just seemed questionable that there was nothing to support the data in the Powerpoint slide, not even from official Malaysian statistics. Slothades (talk) 01:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slothades. You usually don't want to inform user talk pages of discussions. Diff. That can be perceived as WP:CANVASSing. Please instead only inform article talk pages or WikiProject talk pages. Thanks! –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Banks Irk (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can I use Diplomacy, and Trade for citing "Lalitadithya was a vassal of Tang Dynasty" from After having established this kingdom, I have submitted to the Heavenly Qaghan along with other vassals and received orders to position and dispatch my forces. My kingdom has three kinds of troops, elephant(mounted), cavalry, and foot soldiers. The Tibetans on the five great routes distressed this vassal and the king of Middle India. The Tibetans blocked us from entering and exiting through these routes. Therefore, we fought and at once emerged victorious. Now, if the Heavenly Qaghan's army arrives at Palur, even if it numbers two hundred thousand, can assist with the supply of provisions. In my kingdom, there is a dragon pond called Mahāpadma (present-day Vular Lake). I am willing to let the troops of the Heavenly Qaghan encamp there. One user have claimed that this is a Primary source in the talk page of Lalitaditya Muktapida. Infact, the author made a description within the letter (check the book) which makes it a secondary source. Please look into this. Imperial^[AFCND] 13:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add this, since it is a similar case. Indian Esoteric Buddhism: Social History of the Tantric Movement Lalităditya decided to pursue and defeat Yasovarman. Using his status as a Chinese vassal and enemy of the Arabs, Lalităditya recruited from border areas and obtained his magician/general Carnikuņa from Tokharisthan. Can I use this as a reference for Lalitaditya being a vassal of the Chinese supported by the above source? Imperial^[AFCND] 14:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

plz remove this for the time being , the current ongoing discussion wasn't about this .

This new sources could very well be added later when this one is resolved. Summerkillsme (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both refers to the same case. And I am asking about the reliability of sources from experts, as we are not the one who decides which one is "reliable" and which is "not reliable". Our personal opinion doesn't matter. Imperial^[AFCND] 15:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what the edit war was about. This is a completely different and new source,

Our primary conversation was based on you using primary source to make your own conclusion

By bringing this here you are essentially persuading the other editors in different debate which should not be done Summerkillsme (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this right now. This is a noticeboard where the experienced ones shares the reliability of sources. And I never engaged in edit war (following three-revert rule). But you did removed information by your own wish and broke the three-revert rule. I am stopping the conv. And will wait for the response from the reviewer. Imperial^[AFCND] 15:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a primary source only. The letter from Kashmiri envoy is directly taken from our primary source'Xin tang shu' which is mentioned in citation '73' . The book '

is the reference

I would like to know where you get that author says he modified

it/description ..

The author after this primary source writes his Statement where no where he uses vassal word there.

So Essentially your edit adding statement was based on primary source, completely discarding the our most important secondary source in this case.

You made your own conclusion from a primary source here , not supported by secondary one which is violation of wikipedia policy. Summerkillsme (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No this isn't. The contemporary letters are Primary only if it is displayed without giving any explanation about that. Here, the author explains about the letter well in the letter itself. So it is indeed a secondary source. However, I am leaving the reliability for experts and I will follow this until its gets concluded. Imperial^[AFCND] 15:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ImperialAficionado, if you're citing claims made in a letter (a primary source) found in a secondary source, then you're still citing the primary source. It doesn't matter if the primary source has been edited slightly for context; you're still fundamentally citing that letter and not the secondary source. In addition, I don't believe that the secondary source (Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade by Tansen Sen) supports your edit at Lalitaditya Muktapida. For example, you wrote In 733 AD, he became a vassal of the Tang dynasty in China, formally submitting to their authority and During his reign, the Karkota dynasty became a vassal of the Tang dynasty, accepting their suzerainty in 733 AD. The secondary source doesn't say this happened in 733 (only that an envoy reached the capital then) and also doesn't say anything about a "vassal" or "submitting to their authority" or "suzerainty"—in fact, it says Lalitaditya was given the title "King". The most that Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade verifies is that Kasmir supported the Tang dynasty militarily against the Tibetans. Woodroar (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Got it. Consider checking the earlier quote cited from "Indian Esoteric Buddhism", which is a secondary source. I will re edit the article. Imperial^[AFCND] 16:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Woodroar, Kings could also be vassals. I took the letter as the reference as it is modified by explaining by the author himself. The letter is not just a translation, but also explanation as you can see from the words inside the square brackets. And we can see that the author is not further explaining the letter as it is already done within itself. As we can clearly see that he did mentioned things like [modern-day.....], where we can consider it as a secondary reference. Similarly we can see that [along with other vassals] added by the author himself. Imperial^[AFCND] 16:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The [with other vassals] note reads (to me) as Tansen Sen clarifying Lalitaditya's letter, but still indicating that the information comes from Lalitaditya. The citation from Indian Esoteric Buddhism does look better, yes, as his status as a Chinese vassal is in Ronald M. Davidson's voice, not that of a primary source. I would suggest working to build a consensus based on that source at Talk:Lalitaditya Muktapida. Remember that, as the editor who wants to add content, the onus is on you to build that consensus. I would also caution against calling others' edits "vandalism" as that is a personal attack. It's clear that the other editors are acting in good faith—even if you don't agree with them—and such edits are not considered vandalism on Wikipedia. You can read more at WP:VAND. Woodroar (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Understood. I revised the article following your advice, but it was reverted. I've encountered situations before where cited sources were removed or information conflicting with current content was deleted. This often leads to edit wars without any discussion in the talk section. Unfortunately, I've found minimal assistance from MILHIST in such matters, which is why I became frustrated. I apologize for any outbursts during that time. Imperial^[AFCND] 17:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand it can be frustrating when there's a dispute without productive discussion, and no help from a WikiProject—which is usually one of the first places to go for informed but impartial opinions! My suggestion would be to take BusterD's advice, perhaps step away from the article for a few days, and try to start fresh at Talk:Lalitaditya Muktapida. If that doesn't resolve the issue, there are other dispute resolution options, like WP:3O and WP:RFC. There are also millions of other articles to edit; it may help to work on other things for a while, and revisit this after some time. Woodroar (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on one source, you cany change the context. Other historians doesn't talk either support that Lalitaditya Muktapida was a vassal of the Tang dynasty. Shakib ul hassan (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, there aren't any sources that claims Lalitaditya wasn't a vassal of the Chinese. So, there are no contradictions here. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recently noticed that there's an editor who claim SimpleFlying as unreliable source based on two discussion on RSN (which are first discussion and second discussion. However, as I look up those discussion, it seems there are only one or two participants on those discussion. And I don't think discussion between two editors would be sufficient to conclude certain source as reliable or unreliable. That's why I am re-opening this discussion to seek more input.

Refer to SimpleFlying about page, it seems they claim to be news organization (The leading independent voice for aviation news and insight.). Their about page also informs us their journalist and editorial team, which indicate their contents undergo editorial process before published. They also mentioned their fact-checking policy and correction policy on their website, which I think are one of core value of journalism.

Therefore, IMO SimpleFlying may be qualify to be considered as News Organization and their content can be considered generally reliable.
Therefore, IMO SimpleFlying may still be used in WP, unless we have better source. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there that SimpleFlying has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? You can't assess the reputation of a website by looking at what it says about itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that SimpleFlying is good for travel tips, they're generally objective, and they've published some well-sourced and accurate historical articles. That said, for aviation news, they engage in churnalism and often rehash content from other news organizations without full context and detail. Their reporting tends to lack depth. I usually use SF as a one-stop "first alert", then I do a little digging to find the source they used and work from that. If they were on WP:RSP, I'd give them "additional considerations" yellow shading. They do seem to be improving, however. Carguychris (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The SimpleFlying 'Terms of Use' page doesn't exactly inspire confidence. The first paragraph in the section on 'accuracy' is clearly copy-pasted from a website on another subject. [54] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not consider myself sufficiently familiar with aviation to weigh in personally, I did notice the following examples of SimpleFlying being cited by established periodicals and by academics:

• By NewsWeek, in "Ukraine Refugees Encounter Chaos, Racism--and Also 'Extraordinary Humanity'" (2022)
• By the academic Journal of Sustainable Tourism in "Limited Tourism: Travel Bubbles for a Sustainable Future" (2021)
• Presenters at the German Air and Space Congress (Deutscher Luft Und Raumfahrtkongress), in "On the Definition of Development Objectives for Air Taxis Derived from a Holistic Stakeholder Analysis" (2021)
• Economists from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Georgia Institute of Technology, in "Fly the Unfriendly Skies: The Role of Transport Costs in Gravity Models of Trade" (2023)

P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that some article in SimpleFlying do have inaccuraces or mistakes so it's may not be the best source, and if we have better source then we probably should use the better source. However, I don't think it's also appropriate to label SimpleFLying as generally 'unreliable', since as mentioned above SimpleFlying did cited by some established periodicals and by academics. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every source used on Wikipedia has an error or mistake here and there. If you find yourself second-guessing what Simple Flying says, look for another source to back it up, and if you can’t find one, remove it. Otherwise, leave it, as the overwhelming majority of their work is of citation quality. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you have undone edits even when they consisted of replacing the unreliable Simple Flying citation with a more credible citation. Care to explain? Avgeekamfot (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn’t look “more credible” by any margin. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm confused, are we looking at the same diff or are you saying simplyflying is more reliable than The Nikkei? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be edit warring to include Simple Flying rather than the Nikkei source I found now. Avgeekamfot (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have no reason to believe that Nikkei is more valid than Simple Flying. This is also not edit warring. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkei seems to have many of the same issues that Simple Flying does, as identified by others in this thread. If i'm wrong, great- but Nikkei doesn't look a whole lot better. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any readily available examples of this? RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although superficially responsible, with a sensible fact checking policy, there has to be some doubt. For example that policy states, "Before any article is written, we ensure the information is new and accurate. ... Our writers and editors are industry veterans", while at the same time their recruitment page says, "Can you explain to friends which is the best London airport for them? Do you have strong feelings about the window vs. aisle seat debate? If this sounds like you, maybe it’s time to take off with us. Simple Flying is on the lookout for enthusiastic avgeeks with a passion for writing to join its global team." which is rather less reassuring. Every wacky site gets recommended by somebody, every responsible site makes mistakes. SimpleFlying appears to be somewhere near the borderline. Unlike at least one editor here, I have no problem with sites that go back and correct their mistakes when their attention is drawn to them; I wish more RS were prepared to do that! All in all, I'd regard it as on the reliable side of the border line, but with the caveat that opinion pieces, such as which airport to go to or where best to sit, should be treated as unreliable. All the usual issues over cross-checking of conflicting sources will of course apply But from what others have dug up (see below) it does appear to be somewhat unreliable still. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [revised 21:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)][reply]

See my response below. I suggest leaving them as they are, unless inaccuracies are apparent- in which case they should be replaced with other sources and not just deleted.RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that a wider discussion on this topic has been started -- I did try to open a wider discussion before but did not get much participation (although @Starlights99:'s reply was appreciated!) as @Ckfasdf notes. Some points regarding Simple Flying:

• An entire video where they get Singapore Airlines and SAS confused.
• A couple articles where they discuss the A321XLR as flying (before it started commercial operations)
• Content on the 747 where the video and article contradict each other and seemingly no editing
• A Bloomberg aviation reporter pointing out that when they produce news, it's " ripping off our stories and suffice it with a simple "credit" right at the bottom of the story"
• Ishirion (a well-respected aviation analyst) pointing out some of their inaccuracies.
• Enilria (a popular aviation Patron writer) pointing out another article with yet more inaccuracies
• Their writers are not professional journalists or subject matter experts. For example: "lead journalist" for Africa, contributing since 2018, graduated from high school in 2020

They're owned by a company who's entire business model is churning out content for ad and affiliate revenue. Frankly, it's hard to read more than a few of their articles without finding glaring inaccuracies. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS requires that sources have "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and news orgs are expected to be "well established". I'm not seeing any reason to believe Simple Flying meets this standard. Its reputation is one of churnalism, plagiarism, and unreliability. In the vast majority of cases, if what Simple Flying is reporting is true, we can find an actual RS for it and in other cases, perhaps the content doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. As Gary Leff posted in response to @xJonNYC mocking their lack of fact checking: "That's just usual Simple Flying stuff, it's either ripped off or wrong, so it doesn't surprise me when both happen in the same piece." Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, next time you need to provide these details BEFORE you remove it as a source from an article. BEFORE. Not after others have gone and undone your edits and warned you. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the fact that you know how to use a warning template doesn't mean anything. Anyone can post a warning template and use all caps. Let's maybe be civil?

Whether or not this discussion concludes that Simple Flying is a reliable source or not, the onus is on the editor who is arguing for inclusion to gain consensus if it is contentious. If I remove a Simple Flying source (which I will continue to do unless there is a consensus that it is reliable), then the onus would be on anyone trying to re-add it to gain a consensus to do so. Avgeekamfot (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the fact that you removed countless Simple Flying links without providing any justification for doing so other than claiming it was unreliable. The fact you've justified it now doesn't make that acceptable. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’d suggest you leave the existing Simple Flying links in place in articles, unless you can spot any inaccuracies with them, in which case you should find other sources to replace them with. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are expected to make their own judgement of sources, and need no-ones pre-approval to edit. Your comment above that Nikkei looks no more credible than simplyflying is of concern. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of concern? On a quick peruse of Nikkei it doesn't make me any more confident than one would be on a quick jaunt through Simple Flying. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Nikkei is a major national newspaper of Japan, if you judgement is that a maybe reliable website is of equal credibility then yes "concern". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree emphatically with ActivelyDisinterested. Nikkei is a major financial information provider - heck, it even owns the Financial Times these days - and global investors do not take inaccurate information kindly. You do not get more highly regarded news services than this. For someone to suggest that SimpleFlying is on a par with it is merely to demonstrate their own bad judgement and, unfortunately, to cast doubt on all their value judgements in this discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avgeekamfot: Thank you for your clarification, I also try to look up newer discussion on SimpleFlying to find out whether they have improved but it seems not that much. And based on discussion above, it seems we can conclude that SimpleFlying is a Questionable source. With that being said, there two next point to be discuss, firstly regarding future edit (how we can inform future editor that SimpleFlying as questionable source) and secondly about existing article that already used SimpleFlying for the source. For the first part, I think we should go to WP:AVIATION and add SimpleFlying into list of resources to avoid. For the second part, ideally, all citation that initially use SimpleFlying should be replaced with WP:RS, but we are not living in ideal world. However, I dont think replacing all SimpleFlying into {{cn}} is a good idea either, as we are removing initial reference on why certain information included in the article in the first place. Therefore I am suggesting to put {{Better source needed}} instead, as that template is designed to address questionable source in the first place. Also future editor who will replace that SimpleFlying source can still have reference on which article that is problematic. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ckfasdf Appreciate the agreement regarding Simple Flying's unsuitability as a source for Wikipedia.

Based on my count now, seems as though in addition to the two of us, @Steelpillow is in agreement on Simple Flying's unreliability. In the two previous discussions cited, three other editors (unanimously) agreed on this point as well. I suppose to achieve consensus, we'd ideally hear from editors who were part of the discussion @P-Makoto @AndyTheGrump@Carguychris @ActivelyDisinterestedon on their final assessment. And I'm not exactly sure how to characterize @RedundancyAdvocate's position…

I'd suggest that beyond questionable, Simple Flying should be listed as a "generally unreliable"/WP:GUNREL source. The criteria for inclusion at WP:RSP is "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" which we will have met after this discussion along with the two previous ones you referenced when starting this discussion. Avgeekamfot (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with adding to links to avoid for WP:AVIATION as well, btw. Avgeekamfot (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ckfasdf you have the right way to go. It's certainly questionable but is not "generally unreliable"- that would require a COMMON unreliability, which has not been proven. @Avgeekamfot- you seem to have some issues understanding how Wikipedia works, seeing as you left two retroactive warns on my talk page for things that occurred prior to this discussion, which doesn't make much sense. If you continue to demonstrate that you have trouble understanding how things work, we might have a problem. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RedundancyAdvocate I'd encourage you to review WP:CIVIL and cease from your rude behavior that has included all caps, hounding, and a seeming belief that you're entitled to instruct me on how to edit. It's ironic that the person who can't recognize that The Nikkei is far more reliable than a churnalism blog is lecturing me on how Wikipedia works or the English language. You seem to be the only person who doesn't agree that Simple Flying is generally unreliable. Given that the WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include information, if you really believe Simple Flying is reliable, you should gain consensus for it as a reliable source. Absent that, I will continue removing it as a citation when I see it. Avgeekamfot (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules do not allow you to remove a source at will without providing justification for doing so. Warning you for that is not Wikipedia:Harassment either. You seem to have misread most of what i've said. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Better source needed}} is the way to go. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avgeekamfot- regardless of if Simple Flying is indeed unreliable, you needed to provide reasoning for saying that BEFORE deleting numerous links to it. If you go and deleted dozens of links to a source without saying anything more than "It's unreliable", then I have no reason to take you seriously, and will consider your edits disruptive. Keep this in mind next time. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Jetstreamer, if you haven't seen this already. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RedundancyAdvocate, read WP:VANDAL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been "disruptive editing". My point, however, stands. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Thanks for pinging me out. This discussion parallels the recurrent one involving SurferSquall regarding Planespotters; they claimed the source was reliable and everyone else should demonstrate the opposite.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting and made me take a closer look. I've started a discussion here referencing this discussion. Avgeekamfot (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again no-one has to have permission to replace a source with one they think more reliable, this definitely doesn't fall under any sort of 'disruptivd editing'. Mass reverting without any good cause could consider such though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i'm talking about Avgeekamfot removing dozens of Simple Flying citations without having justified that. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just removing that many links to it with no consensus on the issue is indeed disruptive editing. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they were mistaken in doing so, maybe not this discussion isn't over. Either way it takes a complete disregard of WP:Assume good faith to call it disruptive. Either way this forum is for the discussion of reliable sources, if you wish to discuss another editors behaviour you should try WP:ANI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extensive issues with Simple Flying (bullet points on my user page) and seeming consensus that it is either unreliable or questionable (with the exception of the editor arguing that it is more reliable than The Nikkei, lol), I'd like to discuss the correct course of action for articles already containing Simple Flying as a citation.

Obviously, the ideal course of action for any Simple Flying citation is to impeach it by looking for reliable sources to replace it with. However, short of that, @Ckfasdf has suggested adding the "better source needed" template to any Simple Flying citation. I think this would be a reasonable solution if we had any reason to believe that a SF citation is better than nothing but based on the evidence in the conversation above regarding SF's reliability, I don't think this is the case. I think we're better off tagging anything with a SF citation as simply "citation needed".

The "citation needed" approach for questionable sources is also supported by the FAQs located at WP:CITEWATCH which suggests the following steps when a questionable source is found in an article:

Given that we're talking about aviation articles, I don't think the third bullet is salient but I do think following this approach (at least the first two bullets) is appropriate. I understand wanting a "future editor who will replace that SimpleFlying source can still have reference on which article that is problematic" but I believe the article revision history is sufficient, and simply putting a "better source needed" while linking to a churnalism site that plagiarizes articles is inappropriate. This is also the approach suggested by WikiProject Aviation.

TL;DR: Should citations to questionable/spammy blogs like SF be replaced with a "citation needed" or just be tagged as "better source needed" while leaving a link to the blog in the article? Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants @Ckfasdf, @Carguychris, @AndyTheGrump, @ActivelyDisinterested, @Steelpillow, @Jetstreamer, et. al. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to template documentation and Citation needed article, {{Citation needed}} is intended to request citation of unsourced claims and the usage of that template also automatically put the article into Category:All articles with unsourced statements. Meanwhile {{Better source needed}} is intended to be used when a statement is sourced but the source link to insufficiently reliable sources and the usage of that template also automatically put the article into Category:All articles lacking reliable references. Since, we all agree that existing source is questionable source, not unsourced, then IMO we should refer to the template documentation and use {{Better source needed}} instead. Ckfasdf (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we all agree that SF is at least questionable which if added to WP:RSP would = WP:GUNREL. Going further, I think it's WP:CITESPAM and linking to it at all does more harm than good but I recognize that I don't have consensus on that point, just that SF is unreliable 😀

Reviewing the template documentation you've pointed to and given the policies/guidelines I've pointed to, it seems as though both approaches to dealing with questionable sources are valid? Perhaps, at least for purposes of this RSN discussion, we leave it at that and allow editorial discretion on how to deal with SF sources when they come up? Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO neither WP:CITEWATCH or WP:GUNREL are part of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. But yea, let's see what's other editors thought on how to deal with existing SimpleFlying source. Ckfasdf (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, but WP:GUNREL is on one of the absolutely most trafficked help pages as far as citations are concerned so I think if it's controversial, it would have been changed by now.

For what it's worth, another edit illustrating why I think "citation needed" is preferable to even citing SF. Thanks to misinformation from SF, we had their planned fleet size as "up to 80" when every other reliable source said half of an 80 aircraft order by Lufthansa Group would go to City Airlines. Seems like SF simply made up the "up to 80" bit of the article. SF also said had an A319 flying when the airline is not starting service till summer 2024. It would be quite tedious to fact check every single item cited to SF but I don't think it's a reason to retain links to a source with so much misinformation. Avgeekamfot (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's been provided counts as "so much". RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Avgeekamfot notes above, the appropriate way to deal with improperly-sourced material depends on context. I'd have to suggest though that if there is a lot of material that appears only to be citeable to Simple Flying, we probably shouldn't be including such material at all. There seems to be a prevailing tendency amongst some contributors to aviation topics (and some others too) to treat the existence of a source as all the evidence needed to include content in an article. That has never been the case: articles are supposed to summarise a topic, not describe every last aspect in exhaustive detail. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely convinced that it's unreliable but it's definitely marginal at best. There does appear to be some use as a source by other reliable sources, but there are also enough concerns raised to show it's not a generally reliable source.
If the content is due the best course of action would be to replace it with a different source, as with the example above that was switched for The Nikkei. As to what to do with the rest, if it is undue (trivia for instances) it could be removed, while the right way would be to add {{better source needed}} for anything else. However that's also a tag that will simply sit for another decade and go untouched, as it has done in thousands of other articles, while {{citation needed}} tends to get more attention (especially in well maintained articles).
I also agree that adding this to "links to avoid" on WP:AV/R is appropriate, I don't think adding more references to simplyflying is necessarily helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor currently most involved in maintaining the list as WP:AV/R, I appreciate the advice being offered here and have incorporated some of it. As a project we do have our share of "I read it on the Internet" trainspotters and PoV pushers, but we are far from alone. I'd suggest that any specific advice for that list/section be posted at WT:AV/R, for discussion there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelpillow @ActivelyDisinterested @AndyTheGrump @Avgeekamfot @Ckfasdf Let's leave it at the above and move on. We shouldn't add more Simple Flying links, but shouldn't be blindingly deleting the existing ones either; replace them with something else or use {{Better source needed}}. @Avgeekamfot- apart from this discussion, familiarize yourself better with how WIkipedia works. I think we can all agree on this, no? RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this could do with more discussion, and that you shouldn't make any further comments about other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See our respective talk page histories. Not one but two baseless warns on my talk page that make zero sense given the order of events here, and reek of "revenge" for my having warned them before. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again this noticeboard is only for the discussing the reliability of sources, not for making comments about other editors. Just stop. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a poor source - just delete it and tag the info (or if appropriate just delete the text supported by it). Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia and use high quality sources, not non-RS clcikbait like this - just let it go.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you right about this. The issue with the better source needed tag is that editors who disagree will just leave it in place, as they don't agree, so citation needed tends to get more attention. Also as long as they remain they encourage other good faith but unaware editors to re-use the source (even with tags). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the issue with Better source needed tag is that tag is not as widely used as Citation needed tag (557k articles vs 20k articles. So people may not understand the intended use of each tag, which actually are described in template documentation. The Citation needed template is intended for use when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided. Other templates are available for other or more specific issues, such as Better source needed tag, which indicate existing citation that link to insufficiently reliable sources. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is the {{circular reference}} that is for use when someone uses Wikipedia as a reference, many of these languish for over a decade without anyone removing something that should never have been used in the first place. Including many to other language Wikipedia's with completely unreferenced articles. For there intended purpose these tags work very poorly, while citation needed garners lots of attention and there's nothing in policy saying one should be used over the other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lex Fridman, WP:BUSINESSINSIDER has no consensus on reliability. But what about pieces such as this profile of Lex Fridman, which was written by a senior correspondent Julia Black? It appears to be good in-depth journalistic reporting on his career.

Some users have removed content [55] [56] which includes peer/expert critique of Fridman's career and work, because apparently Business Insider not reliable enough to use on a BLP.

In particular, the quote "Computational biologist Lior Pachter said "some scientists and academics fear Fridman is contributing to the 'cacophony of misinformation" seems like a reasonable assessment from a notable expert.

Given it is authored by a senior correspondent (not an independent contributor), and given the author spoke to a number of experts throughout the article, is this not an acceptable source here? Insider is reliable for culture, and this does seem to be a cross-over of tech and culture, although I guess it depends on how it is tagged on the site. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it seems to be a perfectly useable source in this context. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will wait for other comments too. I am regularly having to tidy up the article as Lex regularly complains about his Wikipedia page "attacking" him (usually on his podcast and on Twitter) so his fans tend to come over and demand anything critical be removed. I'm not going to revert the removal as I don't want to edit war. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like another classic case of "man upset because Wikipedia biography is not hagiography" to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments here would be appreciated. The user who is disputing the source has labelled this article a "junk source" on the talk page. I find that hard to believe given the source is/was being used to state what academic experts said of Fridman. Seems per WP:MREL it's acceptable to use the source in this case. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BI can be an iffy source, but I agree with Hemiauchenia that in this case there is no particular concern. Bon courage (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- fine for this use. From what I've seen, their biggest struggle is with low effort promotional/clickbaity stuff; the higher effort pieces don't seem to be an issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it's fine for this particular use. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would Classmates.com’s yearbook section be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia? 2600:100C:A115:208A:B482:F8A9:FB78:2513 (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its PRIMARY Softlem (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The digitised year books would be reliable in a WP:PRIMARY sense (if this is about a livong person you should also read WP:BLPPRIMARY), everything else on the site would be unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Amtrak Siemens Ventures have now been in service for a few days, so the List of Amtrak Rolling Stock article should be updated to reflect this reality. There have been multiple attempts to update this by multiple users, but they keep getting undid by the same editor. They say that there is a not a reliable source to confirm this and that twitter or YouTube is not reliable enough. Given the amount of photographic and video evidence there is, it is clearly safe to say they are in service. This user says this counts as original research. This seems a little strange because a) not updating the article to fit the current reality is just lying straight to the readers face, and b) as another editor in this dispute pointed out, twitter and YouTube have completely accepted as reliable sources in other articles.

So, how can we resolve this dispute and potentially find common ground? Thanks Rckania (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is easily resolved. Stop adding this unreferenced information into the article until there is a reliable, secondary source to support it. Twitter and YouTube are unlikely to be reliable sources for this unless it is Amtrak's or Seimen's verified accounts. What specific sources do you propose as references? Banks Irk (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me specifically. There was an official announcement, but I couldn't get access to it as I don't have a facebook account. I am not the only one who is trying to change it. It is just so frustrating that this editor insists on keeping the article inaccurate for the sake of "reliable source" even with overwhelming evidence. I don't understand what makes one source reliable and another not. Video evidence seems pretty reliable. Rckania (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone trying to change it needs to read WP:BURDEN and not try to add it again unless they have a reliable source to back it up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, guess we will have to wait. I will still have trouble sleeping at night knowing that that article isn't updated, but it is what it is. You can close the dispute now. Rckania (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i've had problems with the same editor on other articles. at one point he even threatened to block me for trying to update an article that was horrible out of date just because of his "source required or you're out" mentality. Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I did not know how far this went. I found him a little annoying, but I didn't feel like getting in a fight with an editor that I was pretty sure had a lot more power than me. Like, I understand the reliable source rule, but come on. It's not like I was sourcing just one random guy. There are multiple videos and photos of this that provide proof. That reliable source rule was not intended for things the general public can see with their own eyes. Rckania (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was. What I find astonishing about this edit war is that the fact of the matter is that these cars have been in service for well over a year, not a matter of days, as reported in multiple reliable news sources, but none of the disputeants apparently know to type Amtrak Siemans Ventures into Google News. Try it.Banks Irk (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Banks Irk: You're correct that the Venture cars have been in service for some time now, as cited to reliable sources in the article. This dispute concerns their use specifically on the San Joaquins service, for which reliable sources are not yet available, and Rckania's wholly unsourced claim of retirement of certain older cars. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again WP:BURDEN is policy, it's not optional on train articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i still don't understand how youtube videos are not considered sources. I mean if the video shows the train running in service, then that should be more than enuff proof that the train cars are in service. Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some YouTube videos are reliable some are not, it depends on who published it. A video from a respected news source saying that the train in the video is a specific model, reliable. Some random person saying that the train in the video is a specific model, not reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A moment ago, I decided to create a source assessment table over at the talk page of WP:BFDI listing sources for the topic of Scale of the Universe. While only one source has been determined to be definitely likely to help that topic meet GNG, there are still some sources whose reliability has yet to be determined for certain. This list excludes sources that have been ruled out as not counting towards GNG.

This source was suggested by an editor:

• The Planetary Society, by Emily Lakdawalla

These sources were cited in a userspace draft from earlier this year:

• "The Scale of the Universe 2 - FUSE - Department of Education & Training". fuse.education.vic.gov.au
• "17.06.07: Micro Life in a Macro World: Understanding Life at the Microscopic Scale and the Spread of Disease". teachers.yale.edu
• "Scale of the Universe | ALN | NT2". nt2.uqam.ca
• "Miscellaneous: Fun and learning in one! Get stuck in to The Scale of the Universe 2". www.itsnicethat.com
• "The Scale of the Universe". Devpost

While I already received responses for the first several sources, that was before I discovered the draft with the rest of the sources. The only relevant response I got after I added that draft's sources to the table was about Game Informer. Nothing has been said about the rest of the sources as of yet. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are reliable sources for scientific subjects. Banks Irk (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure of the relevance of the fitness of the sources for scientific subjects. Scale of the Universe is simply an application/video game.

That said, here are my thoughts on the sources:

- I agree that Emily Lakdawalla's "The Scale of the Universe, by Cary and Michael Huang" looks like a reliable and independent source for this. It is, more or less, a brief review of the game.

- The FUSE source does not seem to constitute significant coverage. It is essentially a curriculum landing page.

- Beth Valentine Pellegrini's "Micro Life in a Macro World: Understanding Life at the Microscopic Scale and the Spread of Disease" is a lesson plan, and the mention of Scale of the Universe seems insignificant. It is listed among the "Resources", which in the context of the other entries in the Resources section is more of a bibliography.

- The web page credited to Gabriel Gaudette (ALN NT2) I'm not sure about; I don't read or know French, so I feel unfit to weigh in on that.

- Liv Sidall, "Fun and learning in one!" from what I can gather is independent of Scale of the Universe, and it isn't making any claims that seem outrageous.

The project page you linked to also seems to have a link to a report from ABC News about Scale of the Universe, which seems to be indisputably a reliable source suggestive of the topic's notability.

None of this is to comment, per se, on BFDI, which I know nothing about. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Skimming over the sources as opposed to the content, it did not register that the subject was an educational game, not the underlying science itself. I agree with the comment that the first, though a bloggish post, is by a SME. Banks Irk (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Lakdawalla is a subject-matter expert; the Planetary Society item looks like a blog post that might not have had to get editorial approval from anyone else, but at worst it's still usable per WP:SPS. XOR'easter (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can anyone please check thoroughly how much reliable this reference is for topics where financial stake can be involved? I mean, it is publishing promo articles on non-notable topics such as [57], [58], [59], [60] with proper bylines. Just went through the site and found all these - I'm sure they are doing it regularly. It is important to discuss because it is widely cited on Wikipedia. 2400:ADCC:179:F000:9473:4AED:895B:E663 (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "where a financial stake can be involved." That aside, context matters. Is there a particular story at the site that is of questionable reliability for a specific statement in an article at en.wikipedia? Banks Irk (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be a normal news organisations, and are an affiliate of the NYT (they republish the international version in Pakistan). However their advertising page basically only discusses advertorials and integrating them "in the most seamless manner possible". The advise at WP:NEWSORGINDIA is about Indian news organisations, but probably equally applies here. It's an issue seen in many countries where overwise reliable sources also contain dubious unlabelled paid for content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alexiscoutinho insists on using Russian propaganda channels from Telegram as a source [61]. When I tried to remove these (a good bit of info was double cited anyway) I was told to, quote, “get over it”.

This particular channel specifically was anonymous, until an outside investigation revealed its ties to Wagner Group’s Yevgeny Prigozhin (yes, the mercenary group full of neo Nazis, who then mutinied against Putin etc.). The administrators of the channel have repeatedly made false claim, including who they were, putting forth fake identities.

The administrators of the channel themselves have said that “They work(…) in the field of information warfare and counterpropaganda in the name of the interests of the Russian state.” [62]

Call me crazy but that does not appear to be anywhere close to being a reliable source, and an editor who insist on using such sources probably should be kept away from the topic area altogether. Volunteer Marek 21:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can't trust Wikipedians individual judgement with anonymous Telegram posts like this. This is what journalism is for. Basically zero reason to ever cite Telegram directly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were better ways to fix that issue instead of just deleting everything like that without any discussion. I've mostly used it as a support source together with ISW reports in that cities list page to explain specific dates when the ISW wasn't really clear about them in the reports. If one requested for me to substitute them, I could do it no problem when I had the extra time. Your assessment should take into account this context and my history of helpful edits in that page. Please don't fall in the "witch hunt" trap. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: You are over generalizing this. Despite all those problems, which I'm not going to deny because I don't know them very well, it is still a generally reliable source for territorial changes. And I'm not talking about the Wikipedia definition of reliable, I'm talking about the common sense/casual usage of the word. I follow that channel and ISW's reports almost daily and I can attest that those sources go inline with each other almost all the time. There's been a long time that I don't hear something (territorial changes) that Rybar said that was debunked by ISW. When they diverge, it's usually when there isn't a lot of geolocated footage constraining the maps. Rybar is also one of the most conservative Russian milbloggers when it comes to territorial changes. In fact, he was one of the few if not the only one who originally denied the Russian claim that Marinka was captured on December 1. So yeah, I understand your point that he isn't the best source for Wikipedia main space articles, that's why I put {{bsn}} in the battle page, but in that list page I really don't see a problem. In fact, I don't even think the RS guideline really applies to such pages. It was never really meant to be perfect and it will probably be deleted in the future when all the info contained in it goes to the individual mainspace articles. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not “over generalizing” anything. Very specifically and particularly, Rybar, a self proclaimed Russian nationalist propaganda channel, is not reliable source. I don’t know what “common sense” or “casual” definition of reliable source you have in mind, but that’s actually irrelevant as on Wikipedia we have an established policy, WP:RS and this source doesn’t satisfy it. Not even in the least.

Of course WP:RS applies to such pages. We’re getting into WP:CIR territory here. Volunteer Marek 21:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That page was never meant to fully conform to Wikipedia's quality standards. It's a fast paced page aimed to help the map Module. When the war is over, it will probably be deleted. When the situation of each battle cools down, those citations could all be substitutes with actual reliable sources. I've done that multiple times in battle articles (the battle of Marinka is the only exception that I remember because I was simply confident that when the ISW report comes withing a few hours it would fully confirm those claims). I could be wrong, in which case I would obviously correct it, but that seems quite unlikely as geolocated footage exists and clearly confirms the claim. When the report comes, I planned to substitute it with the report as source, hence the correct usage of {{bsn}} to portray the temporary nature of that citation. Going back to the list page, even if those Rybar citations weren't substituted when better sources were available, it wouldn't be a problem because most entries are deleted anyways when the frontline moves far away from those villages and cities. Thus, I think you guys are overblowing the proportion of this and also not "assuming good faith". Dialogue is always a good first step when you find something wrong, not accusing others of "pushing propaganda" and threatening to sanction the editor. About the "get over it" comment, I'm sorry about that, what motivated it was the shock of such a huge revert without notice/warning. Once again, I think "assuming good faith" there and starting a dialogue there would have been the best action. Also note that several editors there showed no concern with those edits of mine for months. Thus I was quite "angry" at your bold revert. Once again, it doesn't justify the "get over it", but I hope you understand where I (that mindset) was comming from. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate Russian telegram as they are never reliable, and should not be used for ANYTHING. Andre🚐 21:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All rules/guidelines exist for a reason/motif. Simply repeating/parroting it for any and all contexts doesn't seem very helpful and productive. Please familiarize yourself with the context. But with that being said though, I am indeed willing to stop using it from now on there if it indeed is deemed unfit (after a proper analysis of context). But I vehemently disagree with any form of sanction ignoring WP:AGF. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Telegram channels obviously can not be used as reliable sources. Sometimes these "Z military correspondents" channels get referred to by reliable sources (not by sources which only report social media), then I guess they can be mentioned. Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know the context of those edits? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS applies to all mainspace pages. Andre🚐 21:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Literally nothing on Telegram would be a reliable source, nor would anything on any other social media outside of BLPs in an WP:ABOUTSELF piece of info or, in rare occasions, official news accounts on social media reporting on something. Other than that, anything on social media would not be reliable unless a reliable source, such as the news, reports on it. And, in those cases, you would be citing the news article instead. Silverseren^C 21:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the other editors here: Telegram channels like these are certainly not RS (and I'm strugglng to think of any "context" that would make these acceptable). Look for reliable secondary sources (like Reuters) instead. Neutrality^talk

• Guys, I know Telegram in general is not a RS according to Wikipedia guidelines. Please consider the context of where they were used. That page is a dynamic and fast paced list and pretty much all information there is temporary (settements far from the frontline are deleted and the whole page will probably be deleted when the war is over and individual main space articles are created). It is also not linked in any article and its only purpose, afaik, is to support the map Module, as a "writing board" (because it's much better to use wikitext and tables instead of writing citations and keeping track of historic changes in Lua comment strings). With that being said, I think the most adequate solution would be to make that page an exception/make it exempt from these more rigorous RS rules (i.e. let those lesser sources be usable, but obviously recommend substituting them with better sources when available). The map template doc itself said something like "big claims require great evidence", but no "big claims" were made there using only these "unreliable" sources (these big claims are kept as wikitext comments, check them yourselves). With all this in mind, I don't see a reason to make such "a big fuss" over this. I already give preference to citing ISW anyways. Thanks. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone should add “…not a OSINT aggregator” to WP:NOT. Yes, that’s a more general problem with some of these articles. But regardless, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we stick with our WP:RS policy. Volunteer Marek 00:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But regardless That's the problem, you don't want to consider the context. It's like a judge who already has a veredict in mind and just applies the sentence without even looking at the evidence and defender's statements. That's just applying rules for the sake of applying them. It doesn't make Wikipedia any better because nobody is even reading that page (just editors) and because the map will still be the same (it doesn't show references for each marker). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule on RS only applying to readers, not editors. I understand what you're saying that it's for internal use, but if that's the case, create a page in Project space or User space. Andre🚐 00:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. One last doubt, does purposely keeping the {{unreliable}} banner on that page make it exempt from these more rigorous rules? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are cleanup tags. They don't exempt articles from policy, especially one as fundamental as this. They exist to provide cleanup tasks in a maintenance queue. By putting that tag, you're telling a volunteer to COMEFIXIT. Andre🚐 01:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

👌 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite aside from that Alexis, we shouldn't be providing readers an off link to a source of propaganda that is unreliable, as a reference let alone any kind of external link. I'm not saying you need a sanction or anything for this, just please adjust and move on accordingly, there's a clear consensus not to use Telegram links from Russia for anything, and I wonder if we should consider adding them to the spam blocklist. Andre🚐 00:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Thanks for the well rounded response. I mostly agree, but there is a caveat/I have a question: we shouldn't be providing readers what readers? That page is not really meant to be accessed by readers. It's more like a dev/internal page. For us editors, being shown such questionable sources is not potentially harmful in any way. We as editors know how to treat those sources and we know their limitations. Already answered above Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You write that the list is “dynamic and fast paced” and “pretty much all information there is temporary.” But that’s not a reason to suspend, or even loosen, application of our RS policy. In fact, the whole point of the RS policy is to be conservative: if a reliable source is not available, we simply don’t cover it in the encyclopedia. Put differently, it’s better to be slow and deliberate — to wait for sources to develop — than to rush (and thus risk inaccuracy, or even the appearance of unreliability). Neutrality^talk 02:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

👌 I've already addressed the issue. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In no way is this a reliable source. Wait until independent reliable sources pick it up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree with everyone above that such Telegram channels are not RS, but there is a wider issue. I think that after Russian 2022 war censorship laws, which resulted in a significant number of convictions, all sources published in Russia starting from 2022 are not RS on the subjects related to wars conducted by Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Mega claim. You can't just generally try to sanction all sources from a country. Don't forget that Ukrainian sources are also censored. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We routinely deprecate sources that are simply mouthpieces for repressive states. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct, but their point isnt wrong that we cant blanket sanction all sources from a country. Case by case, if they are acting as mouthpeices of any state we can and should sanction. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  While we don't have an article about it, the Ukrainian government has imposed quite a lot of restrictions on the media as well (see here). It doesn't mean that we shouldn't use them at all. Our editors can and should exercise judgement and decide whether a given source is reliable for a specific claim. For the avoidance of doubt, anonymous telegram channels are certainly not reliable. Alaexis_¿question? 08:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. But, as usual, we can cite secondary RS that cited such Telegram channels. My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can anyone give me a read on this source? I am going inclined to say yes, because the author is an expert, but I am not and possibly this is a forum, and Holocaust in Eastern Europe is definitely a contentious topic. I will probably have other questions btw. The sentence is was formed by the German occupation government and was subordinate to Einsatzkommando 9 and later to Sicherheitsdienst (SD) and Sicherheitspolizei (Sipo) in Ypatingasis būrys. Thank you all.Elinruby (talk)

It would definitely need attribution at least, as the author and this work specifically have been accused of revisionism of the holocaust. If possible I would find a better source. No comment on the specific details, I'll let someone with more knowledge of the area step in. Also you signature needs a timestamp, otherwise the talk page reply function doesn't work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAJ Till when is it applicable, is it based on sources written in India before independence, is the statue available even after 1947 (independence) or not?? Sudsahab (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of RAJ is that it's about a particular theme rather than works published in a particular period. Most of the effected works were published before independence, but that doesn't mean all of them were. The issue is rather ideas and tropes propagated by the British Raj as a means of controlling the local population, propaganda in effect, but one used to "divide and control" rather than lionise the British themselves.
WP:RAJ is just an essay though, and you can always ask for more advise at Project India that has a quite an active group of editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does the New History of the Marathas be considered as a WP:RAJ source? Despite being in the British era, the author Govind Sakharam Sardesai is a well known writer. Imperial^[AFCND] 19:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After Russian 2022 war censorship laws, which resulted in a significant number of convictions, all sources published in Russia starting from 2022 do not seem to be good RS on the subjects related to wars conducted by Russia. I am asking because such sources, for example Kommersant are widely used for sourcing events related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Yes, perhaps Kommersant was a good source in 2021. We frequently say that such sources are OK for official statements by Russian government. But I doubt even that. They occasionally do incomplete and selective quotations and questionable interpretations even of statements by Russian government. More so when they quote and interpret comments by Ukrainian officials, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support reducing the reliability of Russian-state affiliated sources - I'm about to take a wikibreak, but just wanted to throw in early support in principle for this. Andre🚐 19:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Could you back up your statement? Kommersant are widely used for sourcing events related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine "widely" really? Could you give us a numbered list? Because it seems you only brought up this complaint because an editor rightfully used it in the battle of Marinka page, where you argued that Ukrainian sources are simply "more reliable" in general. Note that that Russian citation was soon followed by loads of uncontestedly reliable western sources that went in line with the Russian source, but not with the Ukrainian (Pravda) source, which claimed that the general said that Ukrainian forces were still in Marinka (without direct quotes). Call me not WP:AGF, but I've seen My very best wishes' activity in many pages regarding the Ukraine war and I got a pretty good idea of his arguments and thought process. As such, I dispute his neutrality in this specific request/complaint and understand it only as an attempt to sanction/limit access/usage of sources from a country he doesn't like, without necessarily trying to improve Wikipedia's quality. There have already been numerous discussions about the reliability of Russian sources in the past and the WP:RSP list already restricts that POV a lot. For the sake of WP:NPOV, we should first thoroughly analyze Ukrainian sources' reliability (and I mean add them to the colored list at WP:RSP) before trying to restrict even more the more credible Russian sources. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like nearly 3500 citations to it, many of them on articles related to Russia's attack. I don't edit in the area but I can't possibly see how Russian sources could be viewed as reliable given that they're essentially Russian-government mouthpieces. Avgeekamfot (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Overgeneralization. I could claim pretty much anything like that. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify, I am not suggesting to depreciate all such sources, but only say they are "generally unreliable" about wars conducted by Russia only. Speaking on the "Kommersant", for example, it has been affected by firing of leading journalists even before the war [63], and it recently reported itself on the convictions due to the Russian censorship laws [64]. But again, these laws make it impossible to provide any honest reporting in Russia about the war with Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your second source would suggest that The Moscow Times and Kommersant are mostly unaffected by censorship, and are thus more reliable, since they were able to freely report on such convictions. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article in Kommersant they refer to. Yes, sure, they are allowed to write about convictions (it says, for example, "the number of convictions for the treason was 3 times increased"). People should know about such convictions, be afraid, and be silent - that is what Russian government wants. Even Soviet newspapers during Stalin's time wrote a lot about executing the "enemies of the people" - for the same reason. What Kommersant can not do is describing certain operations by Russian army (like Bucha) in all details and calling them "war crimes". Let's take a look at today's page of Kommersant: [65]: "Повреждения получил большой десантный корабль «Новочеркасск», один человек погиб, двое получили ранения." It says that only one person was killed during today's attack on the Russian landing ship Novocherkassk. This is almost certainly a false information, just as some other "info" in this link. That is what I am talking about. My very best wishes (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

almost certainly a false information Could be, but without further evidence (I think we only have cellphone videos) we can't say there were more casualties for sure. I would say that's pretty objective/dry journalism. Professional I might add since it doesn't engage in speculation. They don't need to portray the worst case scenario (from the little I know, they aren't Russophobes). While there could be a little bit of bias there (which isn't a problem in Wikipedia if we give proper attribution), I don't see that as an example of unreliability. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The yesterday example is too fresh to discuss. But we have a big page, Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. A lot of disinformation was promoted through Russian state-controlled media. But identifying and listing all of them one by one would be very tedious. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think blanket categorisations based on nationality are either correct or possible under policy. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be based on nationality, obviously. There are likely a range of different sources of the Russian language, from different locations, and within each location, a range of different political alignments and affiliations. We're only talking, in this thread, about the ones pertaining to Russian-state affiliated media. Andre🚐 09:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im fine with your vote, but the proposal states "all sources published in Russia", which I dont think is in line with policy. Just pointing that out. For state media, agree that it tends to be unreliable for matters/events that may reflect poorly on the state (obviously). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, that can be clarified. It wouldn't be all sources in the country but specifically ones demonstrably linked to the government organs. Andre🚐 11:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really about a source being funded by a government or belong to the government. A radio station can be funded by a government or even belong to a government, but have an independent editorial policy and strong fact checking, and therefore be a great RS. The issue is being controlled by a government when they publish (or do not publish) a lot of things on the instructions "from the above". For example, all newspapers in the USSR were fully controlled by the government through Glavlit and by other means, e.g. any editor who does not follow the ideological instruction by CPSU would be fired. The situation in today's Russia is not very much different: any editor who does not follow the ideological instructions about Ukrainian war will be fired and possibly put to prison. I think that Soviet newspapers can be used for many topics, but they should not be regarded as good RS on subjects related to the Soviet war in Afghanistan, for example. But OK, I got the point. Next time I will provide this in a different format: specific source X and false statements made by this source A,B,C. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is not unique. There are about 15 countries with strictly worse media freedom situation per World Press Freedom Index and 40 more having the same Difficult status. They include such countries as China, Turkey and Egypt, which also have disputes with their neighbours or fight insurgencies. We as Wikipedia editors should be capable of deciding the reliability of a source on a case-by-case basis. Alaexis_¿question? 08:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should routinely and systematically deprecate bad sources from China, Turkey, Russia, Egypt, and even the US, when we need to. I won't remind you what sources I think are bad in the US. As far as Turkey - yes, for sure, there are some bad Turkish sources already deprecated, right? If not, there surely should be. Andre🚐 09:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship and political interference in Russian media took place before 2022, and I would expect many of these sources would be used with caution whether published before or after the 2022 laws. However, I'm not sure what the proposal here specifically is. Are there sources being used poorly to a significant and repeated (perennial) degree? CMD (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.org/details/vijaynagar-history-n.-venkataramanayya/page/118/mode/1up Sudsahab (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can't ask in that way. As we discussed at the talk page of Draft:Gajapati invasion of Bidar

Is the "Further sources of Vijaynagar History-1 ( N. Venkataramayya)" reliable for citing "Gajaptis achieved victory over the Bahmanis in 1461" by using the quotation from the first paragraph of the page 119?

A comment on this; the author quoted that "whatever be the true result of this attack", which showes the author is not making a reliable statement. Imperial^[AFCND] 12:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.1681/page/17/mode/2up?q=Kabir Sudsahab (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]